Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

Filing 842

STIPULATION AND ORDER Vacating Hearing on Twitter's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 20, 2016. (jstlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.
PATH, INC., et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CASE
SCHEDULING
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CASES:

Defendants.

Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST
Hernandez v. Path, Inc., No. 12-cv-1515-JST
Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-1529-JST
Espitita v. Hipter, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-432-JST
(collectively, the “Related Actions”)

19
20

The undersigned parties hereby stipulate to the following with respect to the schedule for

21

considering Twitter’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 725), and respectfully request

22

that the Court issue the requested scheduling order.

23
24
25

The parties stipulate that hearing on the Motion, currently scheduled for September 22,
2016, may be vacated, and request that the Court issue an order vacating the hearing.
The parties further stipulate that the revised scheduling order required by the Stipulation

26

and Order Regarding Case Scheduling (ECF No. 829) entered on September 12, 2016, will

27

contain proposals for hearing dates to resolve Twitter’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

28
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING
Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST

1

The parties further request that the Court not rule on Plaintiffs’ pending Objections to

2

Evidence, (ECF No. 836) until after the revised scheduling order is entered by this Court. The

3

parties further agree that Twitter shall have the right to file a response to the Objections prior to

4

any Court ruling.

5
6

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: September 16, 2016

10

By: /s/ James G. Snell
James G. Snell
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc.

7
8
9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DATED: September 16, 2016

By: /s/ Michael von Loewenfeldt
Michael von Loewenfeldt
James M. Wagstaffe
Frank Busch
KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
101 Mission Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

22

David M. Given
Nicholas A. Carlin
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa Street, Ste. 201
San Francisco, CA 94129
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

23

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

24

Carl F. Schwenker (admitted pro hac vice)
LAW OFFICES OF CARL F. SCHWENKER
The Haehnel Building
1101 East 11th Street
Austin, TX 78702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

19
20
21

25
26
27
28

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING
Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST

1

Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

2

Jeff Edwards (admitted pro hac vice)
EDWARDS LAW
The Haehnel Building
1101 East 11th Street
Austin, TX 78702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6

Jennifer Sarnelli
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
New York, NY 10017
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendant Opperman Plaintiffs

10
11
12

ATTESTATION

13
14

I, James G. Snell, do hereby declare pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3) that concurrence in

15

the filing of the foregoing document has been obtained from Plaintiffs’ counsel on this 16th day

16

of September, 2016.

17
/s/ James G. Snell
James G. Snell

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING
Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

The Stipulation between Plaintiffs and Twitter is GRANTED as follows:

3

The Court vacates the hearing on Twitter’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.

4
5

725), currently scheduled for September 22, 2016.
The Plaintiffs and Twitter will include proposals for hearing dates on Twitter’s Motion in

6

the revised scheduling order required by the Stipulation and Order Regarding Case Scheduling

7

(ECF No. 829) entered on September 12, 2016.

8
9

The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence (ECF No. 836), until
after the revised scheduling order is entered and until after Twitter has filed a response to the

10

Objections.

11

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

September 20
DATED: _____________, 2016

13
14

By:
HON. JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING
Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST