Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 208

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh in case 5:10-cv-05881-LHK; denying (119) Stipulation in case 5:11-md-02250-LHK and Striking Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment.Associated Cases: 5:11-md-02250-LHK, 5:10-cv-05878-LHK, 5:10-cv-05881-LHK, 5:11-cv-00407-LHK, 5:11-cv-00700-LHK, 5:11-cv-02110-LHK, 5:11-cv-02270-LHK, 5:11-cv-02317-LHK, 5:11-cv-03416-LHK, 5:11-cv-04207-LHK, 5:11-cv-04542-LHK, 5:11-cv-04554-LHK, 5:11-cv-04555-LHK, 5:11-cv-04556-LHK, 5:11-cv-04557-LHK, 5:11-cv-04558-LHK, 5:11-cv-04559-LHK, 5:11-cv-04560-LHK, 5:12-cv-00162-LHK, 5:12-cv-00163-LHK(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

11
12
13
14

IN RE IPHONE APPLICATION LITIG.

Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHK
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE:
ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION AND
STRIKING DEFENDANT APPLE,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

15
On December 12, 2012, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order to enlarge
16
the 25-page limitation set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-4(b) by ten pages when filing Defendant’s
17
Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 119.
18
In addition, the parties stipulated to enlarge the page limits for the respective opposition briefs by
19
ten pages or the same number of additional pages used by the moving party in the moving brief.
20
Id. Finally, the parties stipulated that any reply brief should be extended by five pages. Id. Thus,
21
the parties stipulated to an additional fifty pages of briefing.
22
The Court does not find that good cause has been shown to warrant a deviation from the
23
page limitations prescribed by the local rules for either Defendant’s Motion for Summary
24
Judgment or Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, the parties’ Stipulation and
25
Proposed Order Re: Enlarging Page Limitation is DENIED. Further, given that Defendant filed its
26
Motion for Summary Judgment without Court approval to exceed the page limitations pursuant to
27
28
Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHK
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE: ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION AND STRIKING DEFENDANT
APPLE, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Civil Local Rule 7-4(b), see ECF No. 120, the Court STRIKES this motion. Defendant may re-file

2

its Motion for Summary Judgment in compliance with the local rules.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: December 17, 2012

5

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHK
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE: ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION AND STRIKING DEFENDANT
APPLE, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT