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)

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