"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 314

ORDER GRANTING 310 Motion to Continue by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Motion hearing on 306 continued to 3/23/2010. Opposition or statement of non-opposition due 3/2/2010. Any reply due 3/9/2010. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

** E-filed January 20, 2010 **

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION THE APPLE IPOD ITUNES ANTITRUST LITIGATION No. C05-00037 JW (HRL) ORDER GRANTING APPLE INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL [Re: Docket No. 310]

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

____________________________________/

Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") moves to continue the hearing date for plaintiffs' motion to compel, currently set for February 16, 2010. Apple argues that a continuance is appropriate because the discovery at issue is based on plaintiffs' original complaint--but that Judge Ware has since ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by January 25, 2010 in light of that court's earlier dismissal of plaintiffs' tying claims. (See Docket No. 303.) Apple notes that a case management conference is set for February 22, 2010 that will include a discussion of any further discovery and dispositive motions, and that it intends to request a stay of discovery at that time. It says that as a result, it would be inefficient to hold the hearing on plaintiffs' motion prior to February 22. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that their claims have not been dismissed and that they plan to file an amended consolidated complaint that will not change the substance of their allegations in this case. They assert that the discovery at issue, served nine months ago, will still be relevant to their monopoly claims in its forthcoming amended complaint, and thus, that they will be prejudiced by a continuance or stay of discovery.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In light of the fact that plaintiffs have not yet filed an amended complaint pursuant to Judge Ware's December 21, 2009 order and the fact that the motion to compel, filed after Judge Ware's order, is currently scheduled just in advance of the February 22 case management conference, the court finds good cause to grant a short continuance. Of course, the parties must present any arguments they may have concerning an overall stay of discovery to Judge Ware. Accordingly, the hearing on plaintiffs' motion to compel is continued to March 23, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Apple's opposition or statement of non-opposition is due March 2, 2010. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due March 9, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: January 20, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

For the Northern District of California

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C 05-00037 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: Adam Richard Sand, Esq Alreen Haeggquist Andrew S. Friedman Bonny E. Sweeney Brian P Murray Caroline Nason Mitchell Craig Ellsworth Stewart David Craig Kiernan Elaine A. Ryan Francis Joseph Balint, Jr Helen I. Zeldes Jacqueline Sailer John J. Stoia, Jr Michael D. Braun Michael Tedder Scott Paula Michelle Roach Robert Allan Mittelstaedt Roy A. Katriel Thomas J. Kennedy Thomas Robert Merrick Todd David Carpenter [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the Northern District of California

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

3

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

1

4