Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER PERMITTING LIMITED REPLY BRIEF FROM PLAINTIFF EPIC GAMES, INC. Reply filed on or before 9:00 AM PDT on Sunday, 8/23/2020 and limited to ten (10) pages or less. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/21/2020. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2020)

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 38 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EPIC GAMES, INC.,

5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6
7

APPLE INC.,

Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
ORDER PERMITTING LIMITED REPLY
BRIEF FROM PLAINTIFF EPIC GAMES, INC.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 36, 37

Defendant.

8
9
10

The Court is in the process of reviewing the parties’ briefing with respect to plaintiff Epic

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Games, Inc’s (“Epic”) motion for a temporary restraining order against defendant Apple Inc.

12

(“Apple”). (Dkt. No. 17, 36, 37.)1 However, time is of the essence. Based on the Court’s initial

13

review of the arguments and representations therein, the Court PERMITS Epic a limited reply brief

14

to address the issues and arguments raised in Apple’s opposition only as it relates to the Unreal

15

Engine, and the revocation of Epic’s developer tools.

16

Moreover, at the August 20, 2020 scheduling conference, the parties noted that there were

17

two separate agreements with respect to the two applications at issue: one for the video game

18

Fortnite, and another for the Unreal Engine. Epic’s counsel further stated at the conference that

19

the Unreal Engine was managed by a separate Switzerland-based entity. Based on a limited

20

review of the record, the Court notes that these two agreements do not appear to be included in the

21

parties’ briefing. The Court ORDERS Epic to either file these agreements along with its reply for

22

the Court’s review, or, if in the record already, to identify the relevant agreements in its reply.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Apple did not comply with the Court’s briefing schedule, requiring
that an opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order be filed on or before 12:00 p.m.
PDT on Friday August 21, 2020. (See Dkt. No. 29 (minutes).) Instead, Apple filed its opposition
at 12:21 p.m., with exhibits and declarations filed at 12:32 p.m. Based on correspondence with the
parties, the Court understands that Apple’s delay may have been due to technical difficulties.
Nonetheless, the Court admonishes Apple and its counsel to comply with future Court deadlines or
risk receiving sanctions from the Court in the future for their non-compliance. These deadlines are
especially important involving, as here, time sensitive matters.

Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 38 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 2

1
2
3

Such a reply brief shall be filed on or before 9:00 a.m. PDT on Sunday, August 23, 2020
and shall be limited to ten (10) pages or less.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 21, 2020
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
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