Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Filing 24

STIPULATION AND ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 20 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 12/30/2011. Replies due by 1/18/2012.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/5/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

SEAN REIS ([e-mail]) - SBN 184044
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
JAY EDELSON* ([e-mail])
ARI J. SCHARG* ([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
*Admitted pro hac vice

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

12
13
14
15

PETER DEACON, individually, and
on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated,

16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19

PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,

20

Defendant.

21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-4674 SBA
STIPULATION AND ORDER
RE: ENLARGEMENT OF THE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiff Peter Deacon (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Pandora Media, Inc. (“Pandora”), by

23

and through their counsel and subject to the Court’s approval, hereby STIPULATE AS

24

FOLLOWS:

25

WHEREAS, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss November 28, 2011 (Docket No. 20);

26

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Response is due December 12, 2011, and Defendant’s Reply is due

27

December 19, 2011;

28
Case No. 11-CV-4674 SBA
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER GRANTING PANDORA LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

1
2

WHEREAS, the Parties request a modest enlargement of the briefing schedule to
accommodate their holiday travel plans;

3

WHEREAS, there have been no previous time modifications in this matter;

4

WHEREAS, the Parties request that Plaintiff’s date to Respond is extended to December

5
6
7
8
9

30, 2011, and Defendant’s date to Reply is extended to January 18, 2012;
WHEREAS, the proposed Enlargement of the Briefing Schedule will not affect the motion
hearing set for March 27, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BETWEEN
THE PARTIES THAT, subject to the Court’s approval:

10

On or before December 30, 2011, Plaintiff shall file his Response in Opposition to Defendant’s

11

Motion to Dismiss. Pandora shall file its Reply, if any, on or before January 18, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2Case No. 11-CV-4674 SBA
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER GRANTING PANDORA LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

1
2

Dated: December 1, 2011

Signature:

/s/ Sean Reis
SEAN REIS ([e-mail]) - SBN 184044
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
JAY EDELSON* ([e-mail])
ARI J. SCHARG* ([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
*Admitted pro hac vice

Dated: December 1, 2011

Signature:

/s/ Jennifer Stisa Granick
Jennifer Stisa Granick
(Cal. Bar No. 168423)
ZWILLGEN PLLC
425 Market Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
[phone] (tel)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Pandora Media, Inc.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3Case No. 11-CV-4674 SBA
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER GRANTING PANDORA LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

1
2

General Rule 45X Certification:
I, Sean Reis, hereby attest that I have permission from Jennifer Granick and the ZwillGen firm to
electronically sign this document on the firm’s behalf.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4Case No. 11-CV-4674 SBA
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER GRANTING PANDORA LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED THAT: On or before December 30,
2011, Plaintiff shall file his Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Pandora

3
4
5
6

shall file its Reply, if any, on or before January 18, 2012.
Dated: 12/5/11

Signature:
Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong
Judge of the United States District Court

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-CV-4674 SBA
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS