WhatsApp Inc. et al v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et al

Filing 577

ORDER by Judge Hamilton re 560 Administrative Motion; 571 Stipulation. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2025)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

WHATSAPP INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES
LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION AND STIPULATION RE
BRIEFING DEADLINES FOR MOTION
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. 560, 571

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

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for permanent injunction, and the parties have made
multiple filings related to that motion: (1) an administrative motion, filed by defendants, to
continue the briefing deadlines and hearing dates for plaintiffs’ motion for permanent
injunction, (2) an opposition to the administrative motion, filed by plaintiffs, and (3) a
stipulation, to apply in the event that the court denies the administrative motion.
The court will first address the administrative motion and opposition. Defendants
argue, in essence, that the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing before entering any
permanent injunction, and that holding an evidentiary hearing during or after trial would
be most efficient. See Dkt. 560. Plaintiffs argue that the court can issue a permanent
injunction without an evidentiary hearing, and that there are no disputed issues of fact
relevant to an injunction, and thus no reason to delay.
Overall, the court concludes that the need for an evidentiary hearing can best be
determined after the parties have filed their briefs and made their competing arguments
for which, if any, factual issues need to be determined through an evidentiary hearing.

1

Accordingly, defendants’ administrative motion is denied to the extent it seeks to vacate

2

all briefing deadlines, but granted to the extent it seeks to continue the hearing date on

3

plaintiffs’ motion for permanent injunction. After reviewing the fully briefed motion, the

4

court will determine when a hearing will be set, but the parties are advised that the court

5

is likely to follow its general practice of hearing such motions after trial. To that end, the

6

parties should also consider whether an evidentiary hearing or special interrogatories to

7

the jury is the appropriate procedure for resolving any factual disputes.
Finally, the parties’ stipulation is granted, and the briefing deadlines on plaintiffs’

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8
9

motion for permanent injunction shall be as follows: defendants’ opposition to the motion

10

shall be due on Friday, March 14, and plaintiffs’ reply shall be due on Tuesday, March

11

25.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2025
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2