Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 333

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS IN THE "OPPOSED MOTION" AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE THE REQUESTS by Judge William H. Orrick re 329 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 330 Motion to Compel, and 331 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
FABRIENNE ENGLISH,

7

Case No. 3:14-cv-01619-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUESTS IN THE “OPPOSED
MOTION” AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE
THE REQUESTS

12

Re: Dkt. No. 329, 330 and 331

9
APPLE INC, et al.,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

Plaintiff Fabrienne English filed under seal1 an “Opposed2 Motion to Compel Disclosure

13
14

of Defendants’ Portion of Confidential Settlement Conference Letter or Other Shared with the

15

Court by the Magistrate Either Verbally or in Writing Containing Allegations Against Plaintiff

16

and/or her Counsel, Motion for Additional Briefing on Summary Judgment, and Request for

17

Another Summary Judgment Hearing.” Dkt. No. 329-4. Despite plaintiff’s unfounded

18

contentions to the contrary, Magistrate Judge Laporte did not share with me, verbally or in

19

writing, any disparaging remarks about plaintiff or her counsel, or any information regarding the

20

settlement negotiations at all. Judge Laporte did ask me prior to the settlement conference

21

whether I could think of any reason to continue the settlement conference. I said that I could not.

22

Since I am unaware of “any communications … concerning attacks or allegations against Plaintiff

23

and her counsel,” id. at 6, except as plaintiff has now described in Dkt. No. 329, plaintiff’s motion

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal will be DENIED without further order of the
Court unless Apple files an objection to the order with a compelling reason for sealing within
seven days of this order.
2

I understand that Apple opposes this motion, and has not yet had an opportunity to file an
opposition. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 329-6). Given the lack of merit in the motion, I am
denying it sua sponte.

1
2

to compel is DENIED.
Plaintiff insists that I “should remove [myself] from the case because of taint and bias, and

3

because of the appearance of taint and judicial bias.” Id. at 2. I have no personal bias against

4

plaintiff or her counsel. The only “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts” I have

5

comes from the parties’ extensive briefing of and numerous hearings about the issues over the

6

more than two years they have litigated this case before me and is described in my various

7

reasoned orders in this case. Recusal is unnecessary and inappropriate.

8

Plaintiff also moves for additional briefing and a new summary judgment hearing. Id.
There is no good cause to allow either, and the motion is DENIED. My ruling on Apple’s motion

10

for summary judgment is forthcoming, and English has failed to show how additional briefing or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

argument will illuminate the disputed issues any further. As for her continued desire to test her

12

phone, I address that issue in the summary judgment order. Suffice it to say, it is the role of the

13

proponent, not the Court, to propose a reliable testing procedure that would form a sufficient basis

14

for an expert with scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge to opine on a material issue

15

in a case where testing is necessary.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Defendants’ request for an extension of time to oppose plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. No. 331)
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2017
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2