In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation

Filing 49

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME re 46 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Reply in Support of Motion due by 5/18/2012. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 14, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2012)

Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

S

ER

H

7

R NIA
FO

RT

6

NO

5

re

mes Wa
Judge Ja

LI

4

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

3

UNIT
ED

2

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Daniel M. Wall (Bar No. 102580)
Christopher S. Yates (Bar No. 161273)
Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659)
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

CASE NO. C 11-06714-JW
RELATED CASE NO. C 07-05152-JW
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
[FILED PURSUANT TO L.R. 6-1, 6-2]
Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
The Honorable Chief Judge James Ware

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME
CASE NO. C 11-06714-JW

1
2

WHEREAS Defendant Apple filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
April 16, 2012;

3

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on May 7, 2012;

4

WHEREAS the Parties have agreed, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, that Apple’s deadline

5

for filing its reply in support of its motion to dismiss be extended from May 14, 2012 to May 18,

6

2012;

7
8

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that Apple’s deadline for filing its reply in support of its
motion to dismiss be extended to May 18, 2012.

9
10

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

11

Authority for and concurrence in the filing of this stipulated request has been obtained

12

from each of the signatories, pursuant to General Order 45(X)(B).

13
14

Dated: May 11, 2012

15

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Christopher S. Yates
By

16
17
18

Dated: May 11, 2012

/s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates
Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.

19

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN
& HERZ LLP
Rachele R. Rickert

20

By

21

/s/ Rachele R. Rickert
Rachele R. Rickert
Attorneys for Plaintiffs PEPPER ET AL.

22
23
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: May 14 2012

By ____________________________________

26

THE HONORABLE JAMES WARE
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

27
28

SF\960918

1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME
CASE NO. C 11-06714-JW