Forsyth v. Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) et al

Filing 47

STIPULATION AND ORDER Re: Defendants' Reply in support of special motion to strike plaintiffs' action pursuant to California's Anti-Slapp statute and motion to dismiss, and hearing date for special motion to strike. Case Management Statement due by 10/20/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/27/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/8/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2016)

1 GLENN D. POMERANTZ (SBN 112503)
[e-mail]
2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
3 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Telephone:
[phone]
4 Facsimile:
[phone]
5 KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN 161091)
[e-mail]
6 ACHYUT J. PHADKE (SBN 261567)
[e-mail]
7 ADAM I. KAPLAN (SBN 268182)
[e-mail]
8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
9 San Francisco, California 94105-2907
Telephone:
[phone]
10 Facsimile:
[phone]
11 Attorneys for Defendants Motion Picture
Association of America, Inc., Walt Disney
12 Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures
Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.,
13 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
Universal City Studios LLC, and Warner Bros.
14 Entertainment Inc.

K. LEE MARSHALL (SBN 277092)
[e-mail]
ROGER MYERS (SBN 146164)
[e-mail]
ALEXANDRA WHITWORTH (SBN 303046)
[e-mail]
BRYAN CAVE LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Tel: [phone] /Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant National Association
of Theatre Owners
DAVID SCHACHMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHACHMAN,
P.C.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2970
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel: [phone]/Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Timothy Forsyth

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 TIMOTHY FORSYTH, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals,
18
Plaintiff,
19
vs.
20
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF
21 AMERICA, INC., WALT DISNEY STUDIOS
MOTION PICTURES, PARAMOUNT
22 PICTURES CORPORATION, SONY
PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
23 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL CITY
24 STUDIOS LLC, WARNER BROS.
ENTERTAINMENT INC., and NATIONAL
25 ASSOCIATION OF THEATRE OWNERS,
26

Case No. 3:16-cv-00935-RS
STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
[1] DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA’S
ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE AND
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
[2] HEARING DATE FOR
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg

Defendants.

27
28

30376437.1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00935-RS

1

In support of their joint stipulation regarding the hearing on and reply brief in support of

2 Defendants’ special motion to strike and motion to dismiss, Plaintiff Timothy Forsyth and
3 Defendants Motion Picture Association of America Inc., Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures,
4 Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film
5 Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., and the National
6 Association of Theatre Owners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, recite as
7 follows:
8

A. On April 29, 2016, Defendants filed joint motions to strike Plaintiff’s entire action

9 pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and to dismiss
10 Plaintiff’s entire action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Defendant
11 National Association of Theater Owners filed a supplemental brief in support of same.
12

B. Pursuant to the parties’ May 15, 2016 stipulation (ECF No. 39), and the Court’s May

13 17, 2016 order approving that stipulation (ECF No. 40), Plaintiff’s Opposition brief was due on or
14 before July 15, 2016, and was not to exceed 40 pages of text (rather than the 25-page limit under
15 the local rules).
16

C. Also pursuant to the parties’ May 15, 2016 stipulation, the parties agreed that,

17 following the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition, the parties would meet and confer regarding the date
18 by which Defendants would file their Reply brief(s), the page limit for the Reply brief(s), and a
19 hearing date for the motions. The parties agreed in the stipulation that they would propose a
20 hearing date no earlier than three weeks after the filing of the Reply brief(s).
21

D. The parties met and conferred by telephone and email regarding these issues over

22 several days, and agreed that Defendants’ deadline to file a Reply in support of their motion to
23 strike and motion to dismiss should be September 15, 2016. The additional time is necessary
24 based on (i) the number of issues that Defendants are required to address in replying to Plaintiff’s
25 Opposition and (ii) Defendants’ counsel’s work and vacation schedules in August. Upon
26 reviewing the Court’s calendar, the parties also agreed that October 27, 2016, was the most
27 mutually convenient available hearing date. This date was selected because all parties are
28 available on that date, and the Court is not available on October 6 and 20. The parties further

30376437.1

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00935-RS

1 agreed that, in order to address Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendants’ Reply brief(s) should be
2 allowed to exceed the 15-page limit set by local rules, but shall not exceed 25 pages of text. While
3 the Defendants will endeavor to file a single Reply brief, to the extent that they file more than one
4 brief, the collective pages will not exceed 25.
5

E. The parties also conferred and agreed that, for the sake of efficiency, the upcoming case

6 management conference should be continued to the same date and time as the hearing on
7 Defendants’ motion to strike and motion to dismiss. The case management conference is currently
8 scheduled for September 22, 2016. (ECF No. 41.)
9

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate that, subject to the Court’s approval:

10

1. Defendants’ special motion to strike Plaintiff’s action pursuant to California’s anti-

11 SLAPP statute, in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
12 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), will be heard on October 27, 2016, at
13 1:30 p.m.;
14

2. Defendants’ Reply brief(s) is due on or before September 15, 2016, and shall not

15 exceed 25 combined pages of text (exclusive of caption page and tables);
16

3. The case management conference currently scheduled for September 22, 2016, shall be

17 continued to October 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.
18
19

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

20 DATED: July 29, 2016

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHACHMAN, P.C.

21
By:

22

/s/ David Schachman
DAVID SCHACHMAN

23
Attorneys for Plaintiff Timothy Forsyth
24
25
26
27
28

30376437.1

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00935-RS

1 DATED: July 29, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

2
By:

3

/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
KELLY M. KLAUS

4
Attorneys for Defendants Motion Picture Association of
America, Inc., Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures,
Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures
Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC, and Warner
Bros. Entertainment Inc.

5
6
7
8
9 DATED: July 29, 2016

BRYAN CAVE LLP

10
By:

11

/s/ K. Lee Marshall
K. LEE MARSHALL

12
Attorneys for Defendant National Association of
Theatre Owners

13
14

THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND ON
15 THAT BASIS THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED.
16
17

DATED: _______________
8/8/16

18
19

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30376437.1

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:16-cv-00935-RS