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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?