"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 730

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 729 Stipulation regarding Schedule As Modified by the Court (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Robert A. Mittelstaedt #60359
[e-mail]
Craig E. Stewart #129530
[e-mail]
David C. Kiernan #215335
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12
13

THE APPLE iPOD iTUNES ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Lead Case No. C 05-00037 YGR
[CLASS ACTION]

15

___________________________________

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] MODIFIED
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE

16

This Document Relates To:

17

ALL ACTIONS

14

18
19

///

20

///

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation Regarding Schedule
C 05 00037 YGR

1

On January 28, 2013, this Court entered the schedule for expert discovery and other events

2

proposed by the parties. On April 1, 2013, as part of a case management conference statement, the

3

parties submitted stipulated amendments to the schedule based on information then known to

4

them. After the parties’ submission, counsel for Apple (Mr. Mittelstaedt, Mr. Stewart, and Mr.

5

Kiernan) received an order in another complex antitrust case that reset the schedule in that case

6

and imposed substantial new briefing and discovery obligations, with deadlines occurring during

7

the same period as the deadlines in this case for Apple’s expert reports. Among other things,

8

counsel for Apple in the other matter is currently preparing to take the depositions of experts,

9

preparing rebuttal expert reports, and drafting an opposition brief. Apple’s counsel has worked

10

diligently to meet the deadlines in both this case and in the other case, but despite that effort

11

believes that the current deadline for Apple’s expert reports in this case does not afford Apple

12

adequate additional time to complete its expert reports.

13

In addition to Apple’s scheduling issues, plaintiffs class counsel and its experts are also

14

faced with conflicts. Counsel has a crucial final approval hearing on the settlement of another

15

large complex antitrust action on September 12, and a trial call on another on September 17, 2013.

16

Further, plaintiffs’ economist expert is unavailable from the end of July through the first two

17

weeks of August, 2013.

18

After meeting and conferring over the last eleven days on dates that will avoid conflicts and

19

accommodate the schedules of counsel for plaintiffs and their experts, the parties have agreed and

20

stipulate to amend the dates in the schedule as follows:

21

Defendant’s expert report(s) due:

July 19, 2013

22

Service of Defendant’s experts’ data and documents:

July 24, 2013

23

Depositions of Defendant’s expert(s) to be completed:

August 30, 2013

24

Plaintiffs’ rebuttal report(s) due:

October 30, 2013

25

Service of Plaintiffs’ experts’ data and documents:

November 4, 2013

26
27
28
2

Stipulation Regarding Schedule
C 05 00037 YGR

1
2
3

Motions for summary judgment and to exclude
expert testimony1 (single brief) due:

November 30, 2013

Oppositions due:

December 12, 2013

Replies due:

January 11, 2014

Hearing on motions for summary judgment
and to exclude expert testimony:

To be set once Court has
availability to consider motions

4
5
6
7
Dated: May 31, 2013

JONES DAY

8
By:/s/ David C. Kiernan
David C. Kiernan

9
10

Counsel for Defendant APPLE INC.

11
12

Dated: May 31, 2013

JONES DAY
By:/s/ Thomas Merrick
Thomas Merrick

13
14

Counsel for Plaintiffs
15
16
17
18
19

The parties are advised that a hearing date for any motions for summary judgment and to
exclude expert testimony will be set once the Court has availability to consider the motion(s).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 5, 2013

20

____________________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court held “that nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Civil Local
Rules would prevent Defendant from filing a motion for summary judgment addressing issues
which have not yet been raised before the Court.” Dkt. No. 713 (May 2, 2012 Order) at 1.
3

Stipulation Regarding Schedule
C 05 00037 YGR