In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 728

Order RE: Distribution of Argument on Pending Motions and Reminder Class Notice. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/10/2014. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

12
13
14
15

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

16

ALL ACTIONS

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK

ORDER RE: DISTRIBUTION OF
ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS
AND REMINDER CLASS NOTICE

The Court finds individual Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 554,

19

560, 561, and 564) suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

20

Accordingly, the hearing on these motions, currently set for March 20, 2014, is VACATED. The

21

Court will hear argument on the Daubert motions (ECF Nos. 559, 565, and 570), the motion to

22

strike portions of Dr. Leamer’s rebuttal expert report (ECF No. 557), and the joint motion for

23

summary judgment (ECF No. 556) on March 27, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. The Case Management

24

Conference currently set for March 20, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. is CONTINUED to March 27, 2014 at

25

1:30 p.m. The parties shall submit a joint case management by March 20, 2014 at noon.

26

The Court finds that a reminder notice would be appropriate under the circumstances of the

27

instant case, particularly in light of the issues with the Claims Administrator’s email addresses.

28

However, the Court agrees with Defendants that any reminder notice should be uniform and flag
1
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS AND REMINDER CLASS NOTICE

1

the issue regarding the problems with the email address. Moreover, the Court finds that an

2

extension of the deadline to respond to the notice is appropriate in light of the delayed reminder

3

notice. The Court therefore extends all the March 19, 2014 deadlines to respond to the notice to

4

March 26, 2014.

5

Accordingly, the Claims Administrator shall send the reminder notice proposed by

6

Defendants (ECF No. 727, Ex. C), with the following modifications: (1) All references to March

7

19, 2014 shall be changed to March 26, 2014; and (2) One sentence shall be added at the end of the

8

first paragraph that states “The Court has extended the deadline to respond to the Notice from

9

March 19, 2014 to March 26, 2014.” The Claims Administrator shall use regular letter-sized paper

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and disseminate the reminder notice via U.S. mail by no later than March 13, 2014.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: March 10, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ARGUMENT ON PENDING MOTIONS AND REMINDER CLASS NOTICE