Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al
MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re Motion to Dismiss and for Plaintiffs' Opposition filed by Yahoo! Inc.. (Petrocelli, Daniel) (Filed on 8/20/2007) Modified on 8/21/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF).
Xiaoning et al v. Yahoo! Inc, et al
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI ^s.^. #97^02^ dpetrocellí@omm.com MATTHEW T. KLINE ^s. ^. #2^^^^0^ mklíne@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90067-6035 Telephone : ( 310) 553-6700 Facsimile : (310) 246-6779 Attorneys for Defendant YAHOO!, INC and Special Appearing Defendant YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION WANG XIAONING, YU LING, SHI TAO, and ADDITIONAL PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, Plaíntíffs, Case No. C07-02151 CW MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AND JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PAGES FOR BOTH YAHOO! ING'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken
13 v. 14 15 YAHOO! INC., a Delaware Corporation, YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD., a Foreign Subsidiary of Yahoo!, AND OTHER PRESENTLY UNNAMED AND TO BE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF SAID CORPORATIONS, Defendants.
21 22 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, defendant Yahoo!, Inc. ("Yahoo!") moves for an order increasing the page limit for its motion to dismiss, due August 27, 2006, and for plaintiffs' opposition to that motion, due September 26, from 25 pages to 50 pages. Plaíntíffs agree that a limit of 50 pages ís appropriate, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation ín support of this request, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12. Defendants' reasons for this request are as follows: 1. This ís a complex case. Plaintiffs assert 11 causes of action against two defendants on behalf of three plaintiffs and invoke international, federal, and California law. Plaíntíffs raise
24 25 26 27 28
^ To be clear, plaintiffs stipulated to the 50-page limit proposed, but do not stipulate to defendants' views concerning the pertinent legal issues at issue ín this case, as expressed herein. C07-0215 T CW
MOT. FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF RE: A^^TTT^NA T . PARR
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5
four different Alien Tort Statute claims (each of which must be addressed specifically) and rely on a secondary, aiding-and-abetting theory of líabílíty against anon-state actor (Yahoo!), which further complicates the analysis under the ATS and other legal sources that plaintiffs invoke. Plaintiffs' case raises issues of Chinese law and the law of nations generally, which require some explication, and presents justiciability concerns not raised ín the usual case. This Court and others, in lengthy and scholarly opinions, see, e.g., Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2004), have devoted a large number of pages to addressing such issues in ATS cases.2 2. Indeed, although 50 pages ís twice the usual length for a motion to dísmíss, it ís fairly common for similar motions ín ATS cases of this sort. For example, plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment ín Qi was 45 pages and was supported by well over 75 pages of affidavits on international law. To take just a small sampling of other cases, defendants' memorandum in support of its rnotïon to dismiss in Mother Doe I ex rel. R.M. v. AZ Maktoum, 2007 WL 2209258 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Brief at 2006 WL 4034319}, was 51 pages; defendants' memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss ín Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F.Supp.2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005), was 51 pages; and plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dísmíss in Turedi v. Coca-Cola Company, 460 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Brief at 2006 WL 2310785), was 55 pages. 3. Considering the complex legal issues presented by this case, we submit that a brief of 50 pages is necessary, appropriate, and reasonable. Among other issues, Yahoo!'s motion wí11 address whether: · plaintiffs' claims are justiciable under Sosa v. Alvarez-Machai^, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the act of state doctrine, principles of international comity, and the political question doctrine; · plaintiffs' claims contravene federal, California, and international law-each of which shields defendants from civil líabílíty for communicating with law enforcement
l0 11 12 13 14 15
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
26 27 28 2 For example, Magistrate Judge Chen's initial Report and Recommendation ín Qi was 89 pages, and the final report was 95 pages. ^ After the case was transferred and the case amended, defendants filed another motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum, this one 45 pages. See Saleh v. Titan Corp., 436 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2006) (brief at 2006 WL 1222774).
MOT. FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF RE: A TITITTT^IN A T. P A ^^F.R -2-
Page 3 of 3
1 2 ·
officials regarding ínvest^gations; plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Allen Tort Statute, the Torture Víctím Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the international and California statutory and common law sources on which they rely; and · whether plaintiffs' case must be dismissed because they failed, pursuant to Rule 19, to join the People's Republic of China or the PRC off^cíals as defendants. Yahoo! intends to address these complicated issues succinctly and requested that plaintiffs stipulate to 60 pages to brief these issues. Plaintiffs agreed to s0 pages , which Yahoo! now requests. For the foregoing reasons: (1) Defendant Yahoo! Inc. should be permitted s0 pages of bríef^ng for their memorandum ín support of their upcoming motion to dismiss, due August 27, 2006; and (2) Plaintiffs Wang Xíaoníng, Lu Ying, and Shi Tao should be permitted s0 pages of briefing for their opposition in response to Yahoo!' s motion. Dated: August 20, 2007 DANIEL M. PETROCELLI MATTHEW T. KLINE O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
9 10 11
21 22 23 24 2s
--_ __ ^ Daniel M. Petrocelli Attorneys for Defendant YAHOO!, INC and Special Appearing Defendant YAHOO! HONG KONG, LTD. By:
MOT. FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF RE: A TITITTT^N A T. P A ^.RR
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?