"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 713

ORDER following case management conference; referring case to Magistrate Judge Spero. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 2, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9

NO. C 05-00037 JW

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER
REFERRING THIS CASE TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
/
13
14

On May 2, 2012, the Court held a Case Management Conference in the above-captioned

15

matter. Counsel for both parties were present. Pursuant to the discussion at the Conference, the

16

Court ORDERS as follows:

17

(1)

18
19

All disputes that may arise between now and August 31, 2012 are REFERRED to
Magistrate Judge Spero for report and recommendation.

(2)

The Court clarifies its April 23, 2012 Scheduling Order1 as follows:

20

The Court finds that nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Civil

21

Local Rules would prevent Defendant from filing a motion for summary judgment

22

addressing issues which have not yet been raised before the Court.2 At both the May

23

2 Conference and the April 23 Status Conference, the parties acknowledged that there

24

is an outstanding expert report that has not yet been served by Plaintiffs. In light of

25
26

1

27

2

28

(Docket Item No. 708.)

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (stating that “[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or
the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30
days after the close of all discovery”).

1

this, the Court finds no reason to deny Defendant the ability to challenge that expert

2

report once it becomes available, and to file any appropriate motion for summary

3

judgment resulting from disclosures made in that expert report. Accordingly, on or

4

before May 20, 2012, the parties shall meet and confer and stipulate to a suitable

5

schedule with respect to any further dispositive motions that any party may seek to

6

file.

7
8

Dated: May 2, 2012

9

JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

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
27
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: May 2, 2012

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