Frlekin et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 154

REQUEST TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM re 153 Supplemental Brief, filed by Amanda Frlekin. Signed by Judge Alsup on 4/1/2014. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
AMANDA FRLEKIN, et al.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. C 13-03451 WHA

Defendant.

REQUEST TO ADDRESS
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM

v.
APPLE, INC.,

14

/

15
16
17

ADAM KILKER, et al.
Plaintiffs,

18
19
20
21

v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.
/

22
23

Plaintiffs have filed a supplemental memorandum claiming that defendants mislead the

24

Court at the February 20 hearing on the motion for conditional certification. In connection with

25

the pending motion for summary judgment, counsel for defendant Apple are requested to please

26

address plaintiffs’ accusations in their pending motion for summary judgment against all

27

plaintiffs and all claims (Dkt. No. 153). The page limit on Apple’s summary judgment motion

28

will not be extended.

1

For example, counsel for Apple told the Court that plaintiffs’ deposition testimony

checks. In particular, counsel for Apple claimed that plaintiffs stated in their sworn declarations

4

that a security check took ten minutes or longer (Tr. at 32). When asked to reenact a security

5

check at their depositions, however, plaintiffs were unable to last longer “than one minute.”

6

Ibid. In response, the Court directly asked counsel for Apple whether plaintiffs’ representations

7

of the length of time a security check included “reference to standing in line,” and counsel for

8

Apple responded, “Interestingly, Your Honor, it was not” (Tr. at 32–33). She then read a

9

passage from plaintiff Pelle’s sworn declaration and represented to the Court that plaintiff Pelle

10

claimed that it took between ten and twenty minutes just to undergo the security check. Ibid. A

11
For the Northern District of California

contradicted their sworn declarations regarding the length of time for the bag and technology

3

United States District Court

2

review of plaintiff Pelle’s declaration, however, clearly indicates that he was not referring only

12

to the security check. The very next sentence reads: “The amount of time spent waiting and

13

undergoing these security checks would be on the longer ends of these rangers of the manager or

14

security guard was busy helping customers . . .” (Pelle Decl. ¶¶ 9) (emphasis added). Counsel

15

for Apple then stated, “So again, Your Honor, they’re isolating these time estimates to the time

16

to go through the check” (Tr. at 34). Counsel for Apple should explain why a distorted

17

description of plaintiffs’ declarations and deposition testimony was presented to the Court. This

18

request to address plaintiffs’ claims is not limited to the specific example provided above.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: April 1, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2