Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al

Filing 756

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING #750 MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORTS, GRANTING IN PART #752 REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE AND DENYING AS MOOT #752 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013) Modified on 5/2/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME & LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION No. C 09-1967 CW 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORTS (Docket No. 750), GRANTING IN PART REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION (Docket No. 752) 11 Defendants National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 5 6 ________________________________/ 7 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 12 Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) and Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) 13 move to strike the rebuttal and reply expert reports offered by 14 Antitrust Plaintiffs in support of their supplemental brief in 15 further support of their motion for class certification. 16 considered the papers submitted by Defendants, the Court DENIES 17 their motion to strike the expert reports. 18 Having Defendants alternatively request that the scheduling order be 19 amended to permit time for them to depose Antitrust Plaintiffs’ 20 four experts and to allow them additional time to file their 21 briefs in reply to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief and in support 22 of their class certification Daubert motions, which are currently 23 due by May 9, 2013.1 Defendants represent that Antitrust 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that Antitrust Plaintiffs have made no Daubert challenges to Defendants’ class certification experts. Docket No. 748, 1 n.2. Thus, to the extent that the case schedule sets forth a schedule for briefing such challenges by Antitrust Plaintiffs, those deadlines are now moot. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 23, 2013 deadline for Antitrust Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of their class certification Daubert motions. 1 Plaintiffs do not object to their request to take depositions of 2 the four experts by May 24, 2013 or to an extension of the due 3 date for their briefs from May 9, 2013 to May 30, 2013. 4 on that representation, the Court GRANTS these requests as 5 unopposed. 6 Relying Under the present schedule, for these briefs, Defendants are 7 permitted a total of fifteen pages in which to file separate or 8 joint briefs on behalf of more than one, or all, Defendants. 9 Docket No. 673, 3. Further, EA and CLC are permitted to file an United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 additional joint brief of ten pages or less addressing only issues 11 unique to these Defendants and not shared by NCAA. 12 676.2 13 page limit be increased to twenty-five pages and that the ten page 14 limit be increased to fifteen pages. 15 Plaintiffs do not object to the first request and object to the 16 second request. 17 Defendants’ briefs, whether filed together or separately, may 18 total no more than thirty-five pages, at least ten of which must 19 be allotted to address issues that are unique to EA and CLC. 20 21 Docket No. In the present motion, Defendants request that the fifteen They state that Antitrust The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 5/1/2013 22 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 In the present motion, Defendants appear to characterize the fifteen pages as being allocated to NCAA’s brief only. The Court notes that its prior orders directed that the fifteen pages be shared between Defendants for all of their briefs, whether filed together or separately, and permitted EA and CLC an additional ten pages for their unique issues. Although Defendants may have agreed amongst themselves to a particular division of the pages, the Court’s orders did not mandate that these fifteen pages be allocated to NCAA only. 2

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?