Ward et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 100

ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(d) MOTION AND DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on April 4, 2016. (ygrlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ZACK WARD, ET AL., Case No. 12-cv-05404-YGR Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(d) MOTION AND DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 11 APPLE INC., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 78 12 13 14 On February 2, 2016, defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moved for summary judgment on 15 the issue of market definition. (Dkt. No. 78.) On February 16, 2016, plaintiffs filed a combined 16 opposition brief and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) request seeking the opportunity to 17 complete discovery relating to the motion before the Court rules thereon. (Dkt. No. 86.) 18 The Court notes that it has been fully within plaintiffs’ discretion to conduct independent 19 investigations and build a factual record regarding their theory of the case even absent direct 20 discovery from Apple in the more than three years since this case was filed. Nevertheless, out of 21 an abundance of caution, the Court finds it prudent to evaluate the present motion on a more 22 fulsome factual record to the extent plaintiffs are able to identify additional relevant facts in 23 discovery. Thus, plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion is GRANTED and the Court defers ruling on 24 defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment to allow plaintiffs a measure of additional 25 time to conduct discovery related to the motion and the subject matter specifically identified in the 26 Declaration of Rachele R. Rickert in Support of their Rule 56(d) Motion. (Dkt. No. 92 ¶¶ 41-60.) 27 Apple may choose to conduct its own discovery relating to the motion during this time period, 28 including depositions of the named plaintiffs. 1 Plaintiffs shall complete this additional discovery and file their new brief opposing Apple’s 2 summary judgment motion by August 2, 2016, including a revised separate statement of material 3 facts to the extent additional relevant evidence is submitted. Defendant’s reply is due fourteen 4 (14) days after the opposition brief is filed. The Court shall set a further hearing date if necessary 5 upon review of the additional briefing. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2016 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?