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).
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?