Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al

Filing 458

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES (C-10-632, C-11-388, C-11-4938), ADDRESSING DISCOVERY MATTERS, MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE, AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TRIAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/21/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified on 5/22/2012 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE
NAME & LIKENESS LICENSING
LITIGATION
________________________________/

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ISHMAEL THROWER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly
situated,

14
15

No. C 10-632 CW

v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, also known as NCAA;
and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,
also known as CLC,

16
17

ORDER CONSOLIDATING
CASES, ADDRESSING
DISCOVERY MATTERS,
MODIFYING CASE
SCHEDULE, AND
REQUIRING PARTIES
TO PROVIDE AN
ESTIMATE OF THE
LENGTH OF TRIAL

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 09-1967 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

18

20

OSCAR P. ROBERTSON; TATE GEORGE;
and RAY ELLIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others
similarly situated,

21

Plaintiffs,

19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, also known as NCAA;
COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,
also known as CLC; and ELECTRONIC
ARTS, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

No. C 11-388 CW

1
2

WILLIAM F. RUSSELL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No. C 11-4938 CW

v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, also known as NCAA;
COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,
also known as CLC; and ELECTRONIC
ARTS, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
With the agreement of all parties, the Court finds that the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

above-captioned actions share a common question of law or fact and
11
meet the standard for consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of
12
Civil Procedure 42.

The Court therefore ORDERS that Thrower v.

13
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 10-632,
14
Robertson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
15
11-388, and Russell v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
16
Case No. 11-4938, be consolidated onto the docket of In re NCAA
17
Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No.
18
09-1967, to proceed with the Antitrust Plaintiffs.

This

19
consolidation is without prejudice to a later determination as to
20
whether the cases should be tried together.
21
The Clerk shall administratively close the dockets for
22
Thrower, Robertson and Russell, and future filings in these cases
23
shall be made in the docket of the consolidated case.

Nothing

24
contained in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or
25
disposition of these actions, and, should further proceedings in
26
this litigation become necessary or desirable, any party may
27
28
2

1

initiate it in the same manner as if this Order had not been

2

entered.

3

The Court VACATES its May 2, 2011 Order to the extent that it
required Publicity and Antitrust Plaintiffs to serve joint

5

deposition notices and prevented Antitrust Plaintiffs from serving

6

deposition notices upon Electronic Arts, Inc.

7

to lift the stay on discovery upon Electronic Arts, Inc. by

8

Publicity Plaintiffs.

9

pending appeal in Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. 10-

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

15387 (9th Cir.), Publicity Plaintiffs may move to take a second

11

deposition of witnesses from NCAA and CLC, provided that

12

Plaintiffs are able to show that they have actual questions for

13

these witnesses that they could not have asked during the initial

14

deposition and that they now need to ask because of an intervening

15

change in circumstances.

16

order alternatives to in-person depositions, such as requiring the

17

parties to propound such questions by interrogatory or to

18

participate in telephonic depositions, to reduce the burden on

19

witnesses of second depositions.

20

The Court declines

After the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the

In such circumstances, the Court may

The Court VACATES the schedule set in the March 29, 2012

21

Order as to the claims brought by Publicity Plaintiffs only; the

22

dates shall be reset following the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of

23

the appeal in Keller v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. 10-15387.

24

The Court CONFIRMS the following schedule set in the March

25

29, 2012 Order as to the claims brought by Antitrust Plaintiffs:

26

Deadline to file Antitrust Plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification and to disclose
Antitrust Plaintiffs’ class certification
experts

27
28

3

August 31, 2012

Deadline to depose Antitrust Plaintiffs’ class
certification experts

October 1, 2012

Completion of fact discovery

October 31, 2012

Deadline to file Defendants’ Oppositions to
Antitrust Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification and Defendants’ Daubert motions
on Antitrust Plaintiffs’ class certification
experts, and to disclose Defendants’ class
certification experts
Each Defendant shall address these matters in a
single brief. To the extent possible,
Defendants shall file a single joint brief on
behalf of more than one, or all, Defendants.

October 31, 2012

Deadline to depose Defendants’ class
certification experts

November 30, 2012

11

Parties to exchange opening expert reports on
merits

November 30, 2012

12

Deadline to file Antitrust Plaintiffs’ reply in
support of their motion for Class
Certification, Antitrust Plaintiffs’ opposition
to Defendants’ class certification Daubert
motion, and Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Daubert
motions on Defendants’ class certification
experts
Antitrust Plaintiffs shall address these
matters in a single brief.

December 13, 2012

January 17, 2013

21

Deadline to file Defendants’ replies in support
of their class certification Daubert motions
and Defendants’ oppositions to Antitrust
Plaintiffs’ class certification Daubert motions
Each Defendant shall address these matters in a
single brief. To the extent possible,
Defendants shall file a single joint brief on
behalf of more than one, or all, Defendants.

22

Deadline to depose parties’ liability experts

January 31, 2013

Deadline to file Antitrust Plaintiffs’ replies
in support of their class certification Daubert
motions
Antitrust Plaintiffs shall address these
matters in a single brief.

February 1, 2013

Deadline to disclose rebuttal expert reports

February 8, 2013

Hearing on Antitrust Plaintiffs’ class
certification motion and all parties’ Daubert

Thursday, March
7, 2013, at 2:00

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

1

motions on class certification experts, and
further case management conference

p.m.

2

Deadline to dispose rebuttal experts

March 22, 2013

3

Deadline for Antitrust Plaintiffs to file their
dispositive motion and Daubert motions on
Defendants’ merits experts
Antitrust Plaintiffs shall address these
matters in a single brief.

June 12, 2013

Deadline for Defendants to file their
oppositions to Antitrust Plaintiffs’
dispositive motion and Daubert motions, their
dispositive cross-motions, and their Daubert
motions on Antitrust Plaintiffs’ merits experts
Each Defendant shall address these matters in a
single brief. To the extent possible,
Defendants shall file a single joint brief on
behalf of more than one, or all, Defendants.

July 17, 2013

Deadline for Antitrust Plaintiffs to file their
reply in support of their dispositive motion
and Daubert motions, and oppositions to
Defendants’ dispositive cross-motions and
Daubert motions
Antitrust Plaintiffs shall address these
matters in a single brief.

August 21, 2013

Deadline for Defendants to file replies in
support of their dispositive cross-motions and
Daubert motions
Each Defendant’s replies shall be contained in
a single brief. To the extent possible,
Defendants shall file a single joint brief on
behalf of more than one, or all, Defendants.

September 20,
2013

Hearing on dispositive motions and further case
management conference

Thursday,
November 7, 2013,
at 2:00 p.m.

24

Final pretrial conference
Pretrial documents shall be filed in accordance
with the Court’s Order for Pretrial
Preparation.

Wednesday,
February 12,
2014, at 2:00
p.m.

25

Jury Trial

Monday, February
24, 2014, at 8:30
a.m.

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

26
27
28
5

1

In the March 29, 2012 Order, the Court noted that it had no

2

estimate of the length of the trial for its calendar purposes, and

3

directed the parties to file a notice providing the number of

4

court days that they would request for trial.

5

failed to do so.

6

number of court days they request for a trial of the claims in the

7

Antitrust case only, and to advise the Court of their joint or

8

separate positions by a filed notice within seven days of the date

9

of this Order.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The parties have

The Court ORDERS the parties to discuss the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: 5/21/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6