Pecover et al v. Electronic Arts Inc.

Filing 444

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONSE BRIEF OF OBJECTOR THEODORE H. FRANK. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/25/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

GEOFFREY PECOVER and ANDREW
OWENS, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated,

6
v.

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER EXTENDING
TIME FOR RESPONSE
BRIEF OF OBJECTOR
THEODORE H. FRANK

Plaintiffs,

7
8

No. C 08-2820 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/

11

On February 7, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’

12

motions for final approval of a class action settlement and for

13

attorneys’ fees.

14

ruling on the motion for final approval of the class action

15

settlement to allow the parties to respond to its concerns

16

regarding the allocation of the settlement fund.

17

that counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant were to file their

18

supplemental brief within two weeks thereafter or, if they wished

19

to await the passing of the claims submission deadline, at a later

20

date.

21

Frank was to file his response two days after Plaintiffs and

22

Defendant filed their brief.

23

Docket No. 441.

At that time, the Court delayed

The Court stated

The Court stated that counsel for Objector Theodore H.

On February 21, 2013, Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a joint

24

notice, stating that they would wait until after the current claim

25

submission deadline had passed to submit their supplemental brief.

26

Docket No. 442.

27

on March 19, 2013.

28

Frank’s response was due March 21, 2013.

They represented that they would file their brief
Thus, because of the Court’s prior order,

1

On February 22, 2013, Frank filed a response to the joint

2

notice, objecting to what he characterizes as a “proposed response

3

time” of two days for his response to their supplemental brief.

4

Docket No. 443.

5

“could be submitted on the evening of March 19, Frank’s counsel

6

will in effect have only one day (March 20) to prepare his

7

response” and that it will be difficult to complete his submission

8

in one day.

9

He argues that, because their supplemental brief

Id. at 2.

Frank’s objections are not well-taken.

Plaintiffs and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant did not “propose” a two-day time period for Frank’s

11

response.

12

2013 hearing.

13

have two days, not one, to prepare his response; just as

14

Plaintiffs and Defendant may electronically file their

15

supplemental brief on the evening of March 19, 2013, Frank’s

16

counsel may also electronically file his response on the evening

17

of March 21, 2013.

18

electronic transmissions of documents must be completed . . .

19

prior to midnight in order to be considered timely filed that

20

day.”).

The Court already set that deadline at the February 7,
Further, under that schedule, Frank’s counsel will

See Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(4) (“All

21

Nevertheless, because Frank represents that his counsel has a

22

prior commitment on March 20, 2013, the Court extends the deadline

23

for his response brief until Friday, March 22, 2013.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 2/25/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
2