Pessano et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 15

Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/23/11, before Judge Jeffrey S. White. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan, RPR, CRR, CSR, Telephone number 415-794-6659/[e-mail]. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 11/22/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/2/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/30/2012. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 11/1/2011)

Pages 1 - 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

IN RE GOOGLE INC., ANDROID
)
CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION.
)
___________________________________)
)
TROY YUNCKER, individually and on )
behalf of all others similarly
)
situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)

No. M 11-2264 JSW

No. C 11-3113 JSW
San Francisco, California
Friday
September 23, 2011

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs:
BY:

BY:

AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
221 Main Street, Suite 1460
San Francisco, California 94105
WILLIAM M. AUDET, ESQUIRE
JONAS P. MANN, ESQUIRE
KAMBER LAW, LLC
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005
SCOTT A. KAMBER, ESQUIRE

(Appearances continued on next page)
Reported By:

#5812,
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR #5812, RPR, CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
For Plaintiffs:

BY:

WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN &
HERZ, LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, California 92101
BETSY C. MANIFOLD, ESQUIRE

BY:

LAW OFFICES OF TESFAYE W. TSADIK
1736 Franklin Street, 10th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
TESFAYE W. TSADIK, ESQUIRE

For Defendant
Google:
BY:

For Defendant
Pandora Media, Inc.:
BY:

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
MICHAEL H. RUBIN, ESQUIRE
DAVID KRAMER, ESQUIRE
EVAN STERN, ESQUIRE
FENWICK & WEST
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
TYLER NEWBY, ESQUIRE

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

3

1
2

P R O C E E D I N G S
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

1:27 P.M.

3
4
5
6

THE COURT:

Good afternoon, everybody.

Please be

THE CLERK:

Calling case number MDL 11-2264, In Re:

seated.

7

Google Android Consumer Privacy Litigation, and case number

8

C-11-3313, Yuncker versus Pandora Media.

9
10

Counsel, please step forward to the podiums and state
your appearances.

11

To the podiums, Counsel.

12

MR. KAMBER:

13
14

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Scott

Kamber on behalf of plaintiffs in King versus Google.
And I'm also appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs of

15

counsel in the Urias case.

They're in Texas.

16

similarly-situated interests, and they have authorized me to

17

appear on their behalf.

18

THE COURT:

Welcome, sir.

19

MR. KAMBER:

Thank you.

20

MR. AUDET:

We have

21

THE COURT:

23

MR. TSADIK:

25

William

Audet from Audet & Partners for plaintiff Levine.

22

24

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Welcome.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Tsadik appearing on behalf of Hendrick Cochran.
THE COURT:

Welcome.

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

Tesfaye

4

1

MR. TSADIK:

Thank you.

2

MS. MANIFOLD:

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Betsy

3

Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein, on behalf of Troy Yuncker in the

4

Yuncker versus Pandora case.

5

THE COURT:

6

MS. MANIFOLD:

7

MR. MANN:

8

Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Jonas Mann,

Audet & Partners, on behalf of the Levine plaintiffs.

9

THE COURT:

Good afternoon.

10

MR. RUBIN:

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Michael

11

Rubin of Wilson Sonsini for Google and all of the now

12

consolidated MDL matters against them.

13

THE COURT:

Good afternoon.

14

MR. RUBIN:

And my colleagues, David Kramer and Evan

16

THE COURT:

Welcome.

17

MR. NEWBY:

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

15

Stern.

Tyler Newby

18

of Fenwick & West on behalf of Pandora in the Yuncker versus

19

Pandora matter.

20

THE COURT:

Good afternoon.

21

All right.

What I would like to do is go through

22

some of these agenda items, and then if there's any questions,

23

comments or arguments that anybody has to make, I'll go through

24

those.

25

The first question I have is, I assume everybody
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

5

1

received the Court's pretrial order and agenda for the initial

2

case management conference.

3

Great.

So if you'll follow along with me, on page 5

4

of paragraph 12A, the discussion of interim class counsel.

5

I wondered whether you had reached a consensus concerning

6

interim class counsel?

7
8

MR. AUDET:

And

Your Honor, this is William Audet for the

plaintiffs.

9

THE COURT:

Yes.

10

MR. AUDET:

I've discussed, I think, with everybody

11

who has a filed case with respect to the Google case, not the

12

Yuncker case.

13

THE COURT:

Right.

14

MR. AUDET:

They all have agreed that Mr. Kamber and

15

I would serve as co-lead counsel, if that was acceptable with

16

Your Honor.

17

one more follow-up, just in case I missed a lawyer.

18

I wanted to confirm that with a follow-up call,

So I would like to represent to the Court that I have

19

spoken to everybody, but I'd like to speak one more time if

20

it's okay with Your Honor.

21

THE COURT:

It's perfectly okay.

I would like to

22

have a document, a stipulation and order to that effect.

23

in the unlikely event, from what you're saying, of there not

24

being such a consensus, then I'd like to get a briefing

25

schedule on a motion to appoint you or whoever is moving to be
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

And

6

1

interim class counsel.

2

MR. AUDET:

Yes, Your Honor.

3

THE COURT:

And then I would, as I mentioned in the

4

order and as the JPML rules and manuals contemplate, you would

5

then be the liaison, administratively speaking, throughout the

6

case.

Is that correct?

7

MR. AUDET:

Yes, Your Honor.

8

THE COURT:

Very well.

9
10

good.

13
14

Well, that's

So I'd like to set a deadline by which you would

finalize that process.

11
12

All right.

MR. AUDET:

Seven days, 14 days, whatever suits Your

THE COURT:

Let's say two weeks.

Honor.
Murphy's Law might

apply here.

15

MR. AUDET:

Usually.

16

THE COURT:

Ms. Ottolini, two weeks from today for

17

filing a stipulation for a briefing schedule with respect to

18

appointment of interim counsel, class counsel.

19

MS. MANIFOLD:

20

THE COURT:

21

MS. MANIFOLD:

22

THE COURT:

23

MS. MANIFOLD:

Your Honor, Betsy Manifold.

Yes.
May I be heard?

Yes, of course.
On behalf of the Pandora case, the

24

Yuncker versus Pandora case, my understanding is that interim

25

counsel would not cover that case.

There's no overlapping

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

7

1

parties.

2

There's no similarity in class.
We're the only counsel in the Yuncker case.

So I

3

don't know that it would be necessary to appoint interim

4

counsel separately for the Pandora case.

5

THE COURT:

I think you're right.

I don't anticipate

6

that will be the case.

7

into some of the nitty-gritty here, I intend to run the cases

8

in parallel, for the moment.

9

Although, as you'll hear when we get

I don't know -- unless you, Counsel, have a different

10

view -- that that's inappropriate.

11

cases together artificially.

12

I don't want to jam two

just schedule-wise.

But I'd like to run them together

13

Is that acceptable to you?

14

MR. AUDET:

15

Yes, Your Honor.

William Audet speaking

for plaintiffs.

16

THE COURT:

Yes.

17

MR. AUDET:

Yes, Your Honor.

18

THE COURT:

Okay.

19

MS. MANIFOLD:

20

And that's acceptable, also.

Betty

Manifold on behalf of Yuncker plaintiffs.

21
22

Great.

We've conferred and we now agree that they should be
on parallel tracks.

23

THE COURT:

24

right.

25

the Pandora case.

Great.

Well, good.

That's good.

All

So your stipulation and order does not need to cover
Okay.

Great.

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

8

1

Now --

2

THE CLERK:

Do you want a date set?

3

THE COURT:

Yes.

4

THE CLERK:

October 7th will be the date that will be

THE COURT:

All right.

5

I'm sorry.

due.

6

Now, the next item I'd like

7

to discuss is the item on page 7, which was 12E, the protective

8

order.

9

discuss the stipulated protective order.

10

And I'm directing that counsel should be prepared to

And, as you know, there's one that's recommended on

11

the Court's website.

12

this kind of case.

13
14

It might need to be modified because of

What could the parties report with respect to that
paragraph?

15

MR. AUDET:

Your Honor, I had a meet-and-confer

16

yesterday with Mr. Rubin, counsel for Google, and we discussed

17

either using the model.

18

similar to the model, Your Honor.

19

that.

20

week or two weeks.

21
22

And Google may, in fact, have one
And we may just provide

We will go over it and provide it to Your Honor within a

THE COURT:

All right.

Let's make it the same day,

Ms. Ottolini.

23

THE CLERK:

October 7?

24

THE COURT:

Yes.

25

Now, item F on page 7.

Settlement and ADR.

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

So, now,

9

1

obviously, we'll have interim class counsel appointed,

2

probably, in two weeks, and then the filing of the consolidated

3

master class action complaint.

4
5

So have the parties talked about possible settlement
discussions or ADR?

6

MR. AUDET:

Your Honor, again, I had another

7

discussion yesterday.

8

including that item.

9

obviously need to wait for appointment of lead counsel.

10

We went over all your agenda items,
In going through, we mentioned we

And then they mentioned -- Mr. Rubin, speak for

11

yourself -- that they don't want to do ADR.

12

But there's a

particular position --

13

MR. RUBIN:

Michael Rubin for Google.

14

THE COURT:

Yes.

15

MR. RUBIN:

Our view, at this point, is that

16

mediation is likely to be the most effective, but that waiting

17

until after a definitive ruling on the anticipated motion to

18

dismiss makes the most sense.

19

complaint, if there is one, will be the logical time to do

20

that.

21

THE COURT:

And until we have a fixed

All right.

Well, I think that's fair.

22

The parties should continue to keep that in mind.

23

anticipate doing, certainly no later than in the time of ruling

24

on the motion to dismiss the master -- the anticipated motion

25

to dismiss the master complaint would be to set -- discuss
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

But what I

10

1

further deadlines for mediation, either private mediation or

2

under the auspices of the Court's ADR program.

3

be thinking about which you prefer.

4

And you should

I think you're right that a mediation initially would

5

be better than a magistrate judge because a magistrate judge

6

wouldn't have as much time as a mediator would.

7

just advise you that the Court is going to be keenly interested

8

in keeping that track open, not go too far down the path here

9

as far as, you know, expenditure of resources before getting to

10
11

But I will

that point.
Now, item G, scheduling.

Obviously, the class

12

certification motion will occur, will be filed after

13

adjudication of the motion to dismiss.

14
15
16

So what have the parties discussed about as far as
class certification motions?
MR. AUDET:

Your Honor, we did have a discussion.

17

think we put it in our prior CMC.

18

I

it was six months.

19
20

MR. RUBIN:

I'm speaking now -- I think

I believe that the -- this is Michael

Rubin for Google.

21

THE COURT:

Yes.

22

MR. RUBIN:

The agreement was that we file as early

23

as practical, although there was no agreement on a specific

24

time frame.

25

negotiated and the stipulation provided to the Court.

And the specific briefing schedule will be

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

11

1

THE COURT:

All right.

How soon?

2

MR. RUBIN:

It's not something that we can determine

3

as the defendants.

4

would be done as soon as practical.

5

It's up to the plaintiffs.

But we hope it

Frankly, Your Honor, until there's a fixed complaint,

6

we're not sure whether there's any purpose in detailing a

7

specific date.

8

listen.

9

But if they have one in mind, we're happy to

MR. AUDET:

Your Honor, my view is we can probably

10

get -- as long as we get some discovery from the defendants

11

that will help us for class certification purposes, we can file

12

a class cert within six months of when the Court rules on the

13

motion to dismiss.

14
15

THE COURT:

Well, I think that's fair.

Is

that acceptable with you?

16
17

Okay.

So six months from -- and the date will be set forth
in the Court's order on the motion to dismiss.

18

MR. RUBIN:

19

that.

20

Yes, Your Honor.

We have no objection to

And my understanding is that will track the close of

fact discovery.

21

THE COURT:

22

Okay.

Correct.

Let's see.

Yes.

That's correct.

All right.

I want to -- the other

23

items I think were pretty clearly set forth in the Court's

24

order.

25

management conference statement.

And, also, counsel did a good job in the case

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

12

1

I want to go over some -- before I ask for general

2

comments or any other matters that you all want to bring up,

3

generally speaking -- and we've now established through the

4

Pandora plaintiffs that the parties are willing there to stick

5

to the same schedule that has been proposed in the Google

6

matter.

7
8

Is that correct?
MS. MANIFOLD:

of the Pandora matter.

Your Honor, Betsy Manifold on behalf
That's correct.

9

And I also wanted to indicate that I have been

10

listening to the schedule set in the Google case, and we

11

certainly agree with the six months with regard to the class

12

cert motion.

13

And we had a similar discussion with regard to ADR

14

with the Pandora defendants, and it went along almost the exact

15

same track that was recited here between the Google plaintiffs

16

and Google.

17

So to the extent there's any differences, I would

18

raise them with the Court.

So far the scheduling has been

19

acceptable, and we're willing to track as far as the scheduling

20

has proceeded, at this point.

21

THE COURT:

Right.

And appreciate that.

And one of

22

the earliest things that will happen is, I'm assuming, and this

23

is confirmed by the stipulation that was entered into -- that

24

particularly an anticipated motion to dismiss in the Pandora

25

case would be briefed and heard on the same day, same track,
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

13

1

and the hearing would be on the same day.

2
3

MS. MANIFOLD:

Your Honor, Betsy Manifold.

Yes, we

agree on behalf of Pandora plaintiffs.

4

THE COURT:

5

objection to that?

6

Okay.

Great.

And I assume Google has no

fight.

7

I guess you didn't have a dog in that

MR. RUBIN:

This is Mike Rubin for Google.

To the

8

extent we have a dog in that fight, we have no objection.

9

That's what our proposal was.

10

THE COURT:

11

So, again, I won't need to go through some of these

All right.

Very well.

Okay.

12

items that I had noted in preparing with respect to, for

13

example, on page -- on page 6 of the case management statement

14

in the Pandora case, where there's a recommendation -- Google

15

recommends scheduling responsive pleadings on case in parallel.

16

We've discussed that.

17

parallel to the Google pleading schedule.

18

That will be the case.

It will run

Same is true on initial -- the stay of initial

19

disclosures reflected on page 7, starting on line 2.

20

disclosures being stayed until after the Court rules on

21

Pandora's anticipated responsive pleading.

22

due 30 days following the date on which the pleadings in the

23

action become fixed.

24

schedule there specifically.

25

Initial

And it should be

And we'll follow, again, the Google

With respect to -- on page 7, line 14, the
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

14

1

defendants' position with respect to the stay of discovery

2

until after resolution of responsive pleading to the complaint,

3

the Court accepts that.

4

discovery as proposed in that regard.

That's -- we are going to stay
All right.

5

Similarly, page 8, at line -- starting at line 7,

6

where you're discussing both the protective order and Bates

7

numbering systems used in one proceeding acceptable on

8

materials cross-produced in another, the Court accepts that as

9

well.

10

I think that's a good way to proceed.
And whatever -- with respect to class actions item

11

number 9, line 17 on page 8, whatever schedule is worked out in

12

the Google case will be followed in connection with the Pandora

13

case, as well.

14

All right.

Well, those were all the matters that the

15

Court had on its agenda, because you all did an excellent job

16

of preparing this and I was able to help you out with the

17

Court's order.

18

Are there any other matters?

I think we have the

19

scheduling pretty well fleshed out, at least the first piece of

20

this case pretty well on a good track.

21

So anybody have any comments?

22

MR. AUDET:

23

Does Your Honor want to set another CMC?

24

THE COURT:

25

Questions?

Concerns?

For plaintiffs, we don't have any.

Yes.

I'm going to do that.

What would

counsel propose -- not necessarily a specific date, but in
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

15

1

terms of -- what I'd like to do in a case like this, I always

2

do it as tied to an event.

3

So I'd like to hear from counsel about what event you

4

think would be appropriate, because what I would anticipate at

5

the next CMC would be getting a supplemental statement telling

6

me what you've done since we last met, and do we need to change

7

the schedule, and kind of where do we go in the next phase of

8

the case.

9
10
11

So, I'll start with plaintiffs and then I'll ask
defense counsel.
MR. AUDET:

Your Honor, normally I would say just tie

12

it to the motion to dismiss, but I think, actually, what I

13

would recommend is it might save a little resources if people

14

filing something that says we haven't done anything but the

15

motion to dismiss, is maybe a hearing that's tied to Your Honor

16

actually -- hopefully not denying the motion to dismiss --

17

(Laughter)

18

THE COURT:

19

(Laughter)

20

MR. AUDET:

21

So that was my thinking, because in the past, when

Hope springs eternal, right?

Ever the optimist.

22

we've been before Your Honor we tell you at our CMCs, all we've

23

done is a motion to dismiss.

24
25

THE COURT:

Right.

And that's not very satisfying.

So I think what I'll do is, rather than set a date now, I'll
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

16

1

set a date in the first substantive order the Court issues.

2

And then if anybody thinks -- wants to come back or you want to

3

come back with a stipulation and order saying there's really

4

nothing to report, we propose maybe waiting until, you know,

5

whatever -- it depends on the outcome, obviously.

6

But, you know, one alternative is such a motion is

7

denied completely.

8

the third is it's granted without leave.

9

One is that it's granted with leave.

And

If it's granted without leave, then it's the Ninth

10

Circuit's problem, at that point, or whatever Circuit you all

11

go to.

12

will set that in the next order.

But let's not cross that bridge at this point.

And I

13

All right.

Anything further the parties wish to --

14

MR. NEWBY:

Yes, Your Honor.

This is Tyler Newby for

15

Pandora.

16

speak incorrectly, but we've met and conferred with the

17

plaintiffs in our case, and there may be an amendment to the

18

complaint in their case.

19

And I invite counsel for Yuncker to correct me if I

We would just suggest that that amendment, if there

20

is one, to the complaint be along the same schedule as

21

Google's -- as the filing of the consolidated complaint in the

22

Google matter.

23

THE COURT:

24

MS. MANIFOLD:

25

Pandora.

Yes.

Is that acceptable?
Betsy Manifold on behalf of the

I'm glad you clarified.

That's what I had

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

17

1

assumed, we would file an amended complaint to concur with the

2

Google amended complaint, but yes, I agree.

3

THE COURT:

All right.

So I assume, to the extent

4

that that complaint is not as a matter of right, that there

5

would be a stipulation.

6

they're usually a waste of time.

7

case is, that that would be -- that would be acceptable.

8
9
10

I don't like Rule 15 motions because
And I assume, given where the

So would your amended complaint -- would you contend
it's of right?
MS. MANIFOLD:

The complaint has not been amended and

11

there's been no responsive pleadings, so I would contend it is

12

as of right.

13

THE COURT:

All right.

Great.

Then we don't have to

14

worry about that.

15

down no later than the time of the filing of the consolidated

16

complaint in the Google case.

17

for motions to dismiss in both cases, and then the Court can

18

run those in parallel.

19

And I would expect the amendment to come

That way that'll track very well

One thing I wanted to say for no -- no reason other

20

than it's sort of like an elephant in the room, the Court is

21

aware that there have been recent decisions in similar cases --

22

in the Apple case and in the Facebook or Twitter, the one

23

before Judge Seeborg.

24

those cases.

25

And so I'm assuming counsel are aware of

Again, I haven't, quite honestly, read them yet.
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

I

18

1

just read an article that they existed.

2

read them at some point.

3

I'm not even sure they apply, but seem to be similar cases

4

alleging involved invasion of privacy and the like.

5

And I'll attempt to

But I think counsel should be aware.

And I assume that counsel will be giving those both

6

in terms of their pleadings and in terms of their motions.

7

necessarily does the Court find it would be bound by those

8

decisions.

9

the same ballpark.

10

Not

I don't know what they say, but they seem to be in
And I want counsel to familiarize

themselves with those decisions.

11

So, anything else from the plaintiff's perspective?

12

MR. AUDET:

13

Speaking for plaintiffs, William Audet,

no, Your Honor.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

From the defendants?

15

MR. RUBIN:

Nothing further, Your Honor.

16

The only note I'll make is we believe October 7,

17

which is two weeks from today, is the date we can strive to hit

18

for a proposed protective order.

19

going to actually occur for many months, it may be additional

20

time will be needed.

21

a stipulation.

22

THE COURT:

Given that discovery is not

If there will, I would propose we submit

Fair enough.

And, certainly, this is

23

good cause.

You know, I'm pretty strict on dates, but in an

24

MDL case like this, I don't want my strictness to be the tail

25

that wags the dog here.
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

19

1

So if you can stipulate to a reasonable extension, I

2

certainly would grant that, because my goal is to keep

3

everybody's feet to the fire.

4

burner because it's going to be on my front burner, as I do

5

with all these cases.

6

goal of parallelism, so we don't waste resources here and can

7

run these cases in parallel.

8

Perfectly okay.

9

MR. RUBIN:

Keep this case on your front

And also to make sure nothing upsets the

But subject to that, absolutely.

Your Honor, I understand.

With the goal

10

of parallelism, I'll say that coordinating a protective order

11

that will cover both the Yuncker and Google MDL may be a bit

12

more complicated than a standard protective order.

13

THE COURT:

Fair point.

14

All right.

Anything further?

15

MR. RUBIN:

Nothing further from Google.

16

THE COURT:

All right.

Thank you.

You all so far

17

have done an excellent job and the Court appreciates your

18

cooperation in working with the Court.

19

(Counsel simultaneously thank the Court.)

20

(At 1:48 p.m. the proceedings were adjourned.)

21

-

-

-

-

22
23
24
25
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

3
4

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

5
6

DATE:

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

7
8

s/b Katherine Powell Sullivan
_________________________________

9

Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR #5812, RPR, CRR
U.S. Court Reporter

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR, RPR,CRR
Official Reporter - U.S. District Court
[phone]