Allan v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al

Filing 5

STIPULATION AND ORDER (MODIFIED BY THE COURT). Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/19/12. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2012)

** E-filed January 19, 2012 **
1
2
3
4

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
HENRY WEISSMANN (SBN 132418)
[e-mail]
355 South Grand Avenue,
Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194897)
[e-mail]
275 Battery St., 29th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
ROSEMARIE T. RING (SBN 220769)
[e-mail]
JONATHAN H. BLAVIN (SBN 230269)
[e-mail]
VICTORIA L. BOESCH (SBN 228561)
[e-mail]
BRYAN H. HECKENLIVELY (SBN 279140)
[e-mail]
560 Mission Street
Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed
Class

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Defendant, HTC AMERICA,
INC.

14
Additional Counsel listed on signature page
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN JOSE DIVISION

19
20

MICHAEL ALLAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23
24
25

v.

CASE NO. CV-11-06613 HRL
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
(MODIFIED BY THE COURT)

CARRIER IQ, INC., a Delaware
corporation, HTC CORPORATION, a
Taiwan company; HTC AMERICA, INC.,
a Washington corporation; and DOES 1100,
Defendants.

26
27
28
16154954.2

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiff filed the above-captioned case;

2

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal

3

Wiretap Act and other laws by the defendants in this case;

4

WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district

5

courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of

6

cellular telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier

7

IQ, Inc. is or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ

8

cases”);

9

WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

10

Litigation to transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated or consolidated pretrial

11

proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, and numerous responses to the motion supporting

12

coordination or consolidation have been filed;

13
14

WHEREAS plaintiff anticipates the possibility of one or more consolidated
amended complaints in the CIQ cases;

15

WHEREAS plaintiff and defendants Carrier IQ, Inc. and HTC America, Inc. have

16

agreed that an orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more

17

efficient for the parties and for the Court;

18

WHEREAS plaintiff agrees that the deadline for defendants Carrier IQ, Inc. and

19

HTC America, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended

20

until the earliest of the following dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated

21

amended complaint in the CIQ cases; or (2) forty-five days after plaintiff provides written notice

22

to defendants that plaintiff does not intend to file a consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as

23

otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the event

24

that Carrier IQ, Inc. or HTC America, Inc. should agree to an earlier response date in any of the

25

CIQ cases, Carrier IQ, Inc. or HTC America, Inc., whichever of these two defendants has so

26

agreed, will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned case on that agreed date;

27

WHEREAS plaintiff further agrees that this extension is available, without further
and the court
stipulation with counsel for plaintiff, to all named defendants who notify plaintiff in writing of

28

16154954.2

-1-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1

their intention to join this Stipulation;

2

WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by HTC America, Inc. of

3

any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject

4

matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process;

5

WHEREAS, with respect to any defendant joining the Stipulation, this Stipulation

6

does not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of

7

personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or

8

service of process; and

9

WHEREAS, plaintiff and defendants Carrier IQ, Inc. and HTC America, Inc., as

10

well as any defendant joining this Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ

11

cases is vital, that defendants have received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with

12

and will continue to comply with all of their evidence preservation obligations under governing

13

law, and that that the delay brought about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any

14

evidence;

15

Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, plaintiff in the

16

above-referenced case and defendants Carrier IQ, Inc. and HTC America, Inc., by and through

17

their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

18

1. The deadline for Carrier IQ, Inc. and HTC America, Inc. to answer, move, or

19

otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the

20

following dates: forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended

21

complaint in these cases; or forty-five days after plaintiff provides written notice to

22

defendants that plaintiff does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended

23

Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court;

24

provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ, Inc. or HTC America, Inc.

25

should agree to an earlier response date in any of the CIQ cases, except by court

26

order, Carrier IQ, Inc. or HTC America, Inc., whichever of these two defendants

27

has so agreed, will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned case on that

28

agreed date;
16154954.2

-2-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1

2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiff, to

2
3

all named defendants who notify plaintiff in writing of their intention to join this
and the court
Stipulation;

4

3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ, Inc., HTC America,

5

Inc. or any other named defendant joining the Stipulation of any defense, including

6

but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter

7

jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service of process.

8

4. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendants Carrier IQ, Inc., HTC

9

America, Inc., and any other defendant(s) joining this Stipulation, and the plaintiff,

10

agree that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all

11

evidentiary preservation obligations under governing law.

12

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16154954.2

-3-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1

DATED: January 13, 2012

2
By: /s/ Michael W. Sobol
3

7

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194897)
[e-mail]
275 Battery St., 29th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

4
5
6

9

DATED: January 13, 2012

10

Fenwick & West LLP
Tyler G. Newby
Jennifer J. Johnson

11
12

By: /s/ Tyler G. Newby
Tyler G. Newby
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.

13
14
15

DATED: January 13, 2012

16
17

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
Henry Weissmann
Rosemarie T. Ring
Jonathan H. Blavin
Victoria L. Boesch
Bryan H. Heckenlively

18
19

By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring
Rosemarie T. Ring
Attorneys for Defendant
HTC AMERICA, INC.

20
21
22

Additional counsel:

23

Fenwick & West LLP
Tyler G. Newby
[e-mail]
Jennifer J. Johnson
[e-mail]
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

24
25
26
27
28

16154954.2

-4-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1

6

Fenwick & West LLP
Rodger R. Cole
[e-mail]
Molly R. Melcher
[e-mail]
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, California 94041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7

Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc.

2
3
4
5

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16154954.2

-5-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: January 19, 2012
Hon. Howard R. Lloyd
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16154954.2

-6-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL

1

CERTIFICATION

2

I, Rosemarie T. Ring, am the ECF User whose identification and password are

3

being used to file this STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO

4

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. In compliance with General Order

5

45.X.B., I hereby attest that Michael W. Sobol and Tyler G. Newby concurred in this filing.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16154954.2

-7-

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 11-06613 HRL