Raney v. Twitter, Inc.

Filing 46

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Hon. William Alsup granting 45 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2015)

!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Todd Logan (SBN – 305912)
[e-mail]
Samuel Lasser (SBN - 252754)
[e-mail]
Rafey S. Balabanian (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
EDELSON PC
329 Bryant Stret
San Francisco, California 94107
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Alexander T.H. Nguyen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Amir C. Missaghi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes

15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19

WILFORD RANEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

20
21

v.

22

TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,

23

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-04191-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLY MTN.

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04191-WHA

!
!
1
2

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Wilford Raney (“Plaintiff” or “Raney”) and Defendant Twitter,
Inc. (“Defendant” or “Twitter”) respectfully submit this stipulation;

3
4

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2015, Twitter filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion For
A Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 39);

5
6

WHEREAS, it is Plaintiff’s position that Twitter’s Opposition attaches Declarations from
four Twitter employees, each attesting to facts relevant to Twitter’s Opposition;

7

WHEREAS, it is Plaintiff’s position that Plaintiff needs an opportunity to assess the

8

veracity (via limited expedited discovery) of those attestations in order to prepare his Reply

9

brief;

10

WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred more than five times (and exchanged dozens

11

of emails) between December 15, 2015 and December 23, 2015 to discuss Plaintiff’s position

12

that he needs limited expedited discovery;

13

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Plaintiff may conduct a three-hour Rule

14

30(b)(6) deposition of a Twitter representative on January 6, 2016, limited specifically to

15

subjects and argument raised in Twitter’s Opposition Brief and the attached Declarations, and

16

Defendant has agreed to produce limited discovery, including non-custodial, overview

17

documents and written interrogatory responses around January 5, 2016;

18

WHEREAS, pursuant to a stipulation by the Parties (Dkt. 26) and an order of this Court

19

(Dkt. 27), the deadline for Plaintiff to file his reply in support of his motion for preliminary

20

injunction is January 9, 2016;

21

WHEREAS, it is Plaintiff’s position that Plaintiff could not by January 9, 2016

22

reasonably incorporate into his reply brief any information gained from the upcoming Rule

23

30(b)(6) deposition;

24

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Plaintiff will seek, and Twitter will not oppose,

25

an extension of time, up to and including January 15, 2016, for Plaintiff to file his reply in

26

support of his motion for preliminary injunction;

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLY MTN.

1!

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04191-WHA

!
!
1
2

THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Twitter hereby stipulate and agree, subject to Court
approval, as follows:

3
4

STIPULATION
1.

By and through his undersigned counsel, Plaintiff hereby requests, and Twitter

5

does not oppose, that Plaintiff be given a six (6) day extension to file his reply to Twitter’s

6

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 39)—up to and including

7

January 15, 2016. The date and time for the hearing of the motion (January 28, 2016, at 8:00am)

8

shall remain unchanged.

9

2.

The reason for the requested extension is that Plaintiff’s position is that he needs

10

time to incorporate into his reply brief the information learned during the upcoming January 6,

11

2016 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Twitter.

12

3.

No other time modifications have been requested or granted in this case, except

13

that the parties stipulated to, and the Court adopted, a briefing schedule for a number of pending

14

and then-anticipated motions. (Dkt. 27.)

15

4.

The requested time modification would not affect any other deadlines set by the

16

Court, as the hearing date for Plaintiff’s Motion (as well as several other motions) is January 28,

17

2016—thirteen days after Plaintiff’s proposed reply would be due.

18

5.

All affected parties agree to the stipulation as indicated by their signatures below.

19

Plaintiff respectfully requests, and Twitter does not oppose, that the Court approve the

20

stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, and enter an Order thereupon, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12.

21
22

Dated: December 28, 2015

23

EDELSON PC
By: /s/ Todd Logan
One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

24
25
26

Dated: December 28, 2015

COOLEY LLP

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLY MTN.

2!

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04191-WHA

!
!
By: /s/ Kyle C. Wong
One of Defendant’s Attorneys

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

DATED:

December 29, 2015.

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP
United States District Judge

5
6
7

ATTESTATION

8
9

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in
the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.

10
11

Dated: December 28, 2015

/s/ Todd Logan

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO FILE REPLY MTN.

3!

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04191-WHA