Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al

Filing 845

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE NCAAS #841 MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND DENYING #837 MOTION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2013)

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

No. C 09-1967 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE NCAA’S
MOTION TO EXPEDITE
(Docket No. 841)
AND DENYING MOTION
FOR CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE (Docket
No. 837)

On July 30, 2013, Defendant National Collegiate Athletic
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Association (NCAA) filed three motions: a motion for additional
11
briefing and an evidentiary hearing on Antitrust Plaintiffs’
12
motion for class certification; a motion for leave to file a
13
motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended class action
14
complaint; and a request for a case management conference.

On

15
August 2, 2013, the NCAA filed a motion for expedited
16
consideration and briefing of these three motions.

In their

17
motion to expedite, the NCAA requests that the date for Antitrust
18
Plaintiffs’ responses to the three motions remain due August 13,
19
2013 but that the NCAA’s replies be due August 19, 2013, and that
20
the Court hear the motions on August 22, 2013.
21
Antitrust Plaintiffs have filed a response to the motion to
22
expedite.

They consent to the expedited briefing schedule and

23
object to the request to change the hearing date from September 5,
24
2013 to August 22, 2013 due to the unavailability of their
25
counsel.
26
The NCAA contends that consideration of its request for a
27
case management conference should take place quickly and the
28

conference should held as soon as possible because, among other

2

things, an unmanageable inconsistency between several dates

3

currently exists in the case management schedule.

4

not state whether it has tried to work with the other parties to

5

resolve this or any other case management issue that it has

6

identified.

7

that the inconsistency has not been raised with them and that they

8

would be amenable to making adjustments to address such problems.

9

The Court further notes that, at the June 20, 2013 hearing when it

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

granted Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc.’s request for a sixty day

11

extension of the expert report deadline, it directed the parties

12

to discuss between themselves the remaining case management dates.

13

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the NCAA’s motion for a case

14

management conference (Docket No. 837) and ORDERS the parties to

15

meet and confer regarding the case management schedule and file a

16

joint status statement due by August 19, 2013.

17

The NCAA does

In their response, Antitrust Plaintiffs represent

The Court grants in part and denies in part the NCAA’s motion

18

to change time regarding its other two motions.

19

briefs on the motion for additional briefing and motion for leave

20

are due by August 19, 2013.

21

2013 hearing and will resolve these motions on the papers.

22

The NCAA’s reply

The Court vacates the September 5,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: 8/8/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2