Marcus et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 71

SUPPLEMENT TO ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on 3/27/2015. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

URIEL MARCUS, BENEDICT
VERCELES, and Others Similarly
Situated,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

SUPPLEMENT TO ORDER RE
PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS

APPLE INC,
Defendant.
/

14
15

No. C 14-03824 WHA

The Court wishes to add that plaintiffs’ failure to attend their depositions by the April 3

16

deadline will result in an adverse inference. Apple is required to comply with the previous

17

order’s deadlines, regardless of whether plaintiffs sit for their depositions. If plaintiffs fail to sit

18

for their depositions by the deadline, they will forfeit their right to interpose testimony contrary

19

to the submissions by Apple.

20

Plaintiffs’ counsel should not have waited until the eleventh hour to seek an extension

21

and has not shown good cause for a postponement. Nevertheless a postponement was granted

22

until April 3. No more extensions will be granted.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: March 27, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE