"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 690

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF by Judge James Ware denying 687 Motion (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2011) Modified on 10/25/2011 (tsh, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 05-00037 JW

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF

12
13
/
14
15

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Administrative Motion Regarding Seven Motions

16

Renoticed by Plaintiffs. (hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 687.) Defendant moves the Court to

17

take one of several forms of action in response to a number of Motions that were renoticed by

18

Plaintiffs in response to the Court’s September 27, 2011 Order,1 on the ground that the “record that

19

Plaintiffs have ‘renoticed’ is both over- and under-inclusive.” (Motion at 2.)

20

Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to take any of the forms of action requested

21

by Defendant. In its September 27 Order, the Court specifically identified a “number of pending

22

Motions relating to class certification in this case,” and instructed the parties to “terminate[] and

23

renotice[]” each of those pending Motions “[i]n light of the Court’s grant of additional time for the

24

parties to complete [certain] Supplemental Expert Reports, and in order to control its own docket.”

25

(September 27 Order at 1-2.) The Court further explained that “[u]pon renoticing, the Motions

26

remain under submission pending the parties’ Supplemental Briefs.” (Id. at 2.) Pursuant to the

27
1

28

(Order Requiring Parties to Renotice Pending Motions, hereafter, “September 27 Order,”
Docket Item No. 680.)

1

Court’s September 27 Order, Plaintiffs renoticed the pending Motions for November 28, 2011.2

2

(See Docket Item No. 686.) Thus, Plaintiffs have complied with the Court’s September 27 Order.

3

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief is DENIED.

4
5
6

Dated: October 24, 2011

7

JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2

27

As previously discussed, the Motions are taken under submission without oral argument.
However, the Court reserves the right to have additional hearing upon review of the briefs submitted
to date.

28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Alexandra Senya Bernay [e-mail]
Alreen Haeggquist [e-mail]
Andrew S. Friedman [e-mail]
Bonny E. Sweeney [e-mail]
Brian P Murray [e-mail]
Carmen Anthony Medici [e-mail]
Caroline Nason Mitchell [e-mail]
Craig Ellsworth Stewart [e-mail]
David Craig Kiernan [e-mail]
Elaine A. Ryan [e-mail]
Francis Joseph Balint [e-mail]
George A. Riley [e-mail]
Helen I. Zeldes [e-mail]
Jacqueline Sailer [e-mail]
John J. Stoia [e-mail]
Michael D Braun [e-mail]
Michael D. Braun [e-mail]
Michael Tedder Scott [e-mail]
Robert Allan Mittelstaedt [e-mail]
Roy Arie Katriel [e-mail]
Thomas J. Kennedy [e-mail]
Thomas Robert Merrick [e-mail]
Todd David Carpenter [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Dated: October 24, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

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

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy