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)

Download PDF
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

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?