In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 Stipulation filed by Linkedin Corporation. The stipulation is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Before the court will consider extending Defendant's time to respond to the Complaint, and before the court will con sider consolidating this case with cases not already assigned to Judge Davila, the parties must file and obtain a ruling on an administrative motion to consider whether cases should be related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b). Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/23/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SEAN P. REIS (184044)
([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]

FO
LI

ER

H

Attorneys for Defendant LINKEDIN CORPORATION
6
7

R NIA

S

RT

5

NO

4

A

3

UNIT
ED

2

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail])
MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972) ([e-mail])
T
ITHOU
WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (216083) ([e-mail])
IED W
DEN
101 California Street, 5th Floor
DICE
PREJU
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
avila
a rd J . D
Facsimile:
[phone]
ge E d w
Jud

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

JAY EDELSON* ([e-mail])
RAFEY S. BALABANIAN* ([e-mail])
ARI J. SCHARG* ([e-mail])
CHRISTOPHER L. DORE* ([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KATIE SZPYRKA

16
* Motion for admission pro hac vice to be filed
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case No. 12-CV-3088 EJD

KATIE SZPYRKA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(CIV. L.R. 6-1(a))

Plaintiff,
v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation,

Courtroom:
Judge:
Trial Date:

Defendant.

4, 5th Floor
Hon. Edward J. Davila
None Set

25
26
27
28
STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
CASE NO. 12-CV-3088-EJD

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

1

This Stipulation is entered into by and among plaintiff Katie Szpyrka (“Plaintiff”) and

2

defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) (Plaintiff and LinkedIn collectively the “Parties”),

3

by and through their respective counsel.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the above-entitled action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 15, 2012;
WHEREAS a Waiver of the Service of Summons form, executed by LinkedIn’s counsel,
has been filed;
WHEREAS the current deadline for LinkedIn to answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the Complaint is August 14, 2012 (60 days from the date on which Plaintiffs sent the request for
waiver of service to LinkedIn);
WHEREAS, including this action, there are a total of four related actions that have been

12

filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (collectively the

13

“Related Actions”), with this action being the first-filed and lowest-numbered action;

14

WHEREAS the three other Related Actions are captioned Paraggua v. LinkedIn Corp.,

15

Case No. 12-CV-3430 EDL; Shepherd v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 12-CV-3422 JSC; and Veith

16

v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 12-CV-3557 PSG;

17

WHEREAS, on July 16, 2012, on the docket in this action (Dkt. No. 12), the plaintiffs in

18

the four Related Actions jointly filed a Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Lead Class

19

Counsel and Liaison Class Counsel (the “Motion to Consolidate”), in which all plaintiffs jointly

20

moved the Court to consolidate the four Related Actions into the Szpyrka action before this Court

21

(the Honorable Edward J. Davila), to grant leave to file a consolidated amended complaint, and to

22

appoint interim lead class counsel and liaison class counsel;

23
24
25

WHEREAS LinkedIn supports consolidation of the Related Actions and the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint;
WHEREAS, in light of the pendency of the Motion to Consolidate jointly filed by the

26

plaintiffs in all four Related Actions and LinkedIn’s support for consolidation, the Parties believe

27

that the interests of efficiency and judicial and party economy are best served by not requiring

28

LinkedIn to file a response to the complaint in each of the four Related Actions, and, instead, are
STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
CASE NO. 12-CV-3088-EJD

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2.

1

best served by waiting for the consolidated amended complaint to be filed before requiring

2

LinkedIn to file a response;

3

WHEREAS under Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), parties may stipulate in writing, without a

4

court order, to extend the time within which to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint;

5

WHEREAS extending the date for LinkedIn to respond to the Complaint as set forth

6

below will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order;

7

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

8

1.

9
10
11

LinkedIn’s deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in

this action—currently August 14, 2012—is stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the plaintiffs’
Motion to Consolidate.
2.

If the Motion to Consolidate is granted, LinkedIn will no longer have an obligation

12

to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action, and instead must answer,

13

move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint within 45 days after the

14

deadline for the plaintiffs in the Related Actions to file the consolidated amended complaint.

15

3.

In the event that the Motion to Consolidate is denied, LinkedIn’s deadline to

16

answer, move, or otherwise respond to the current operative Complaint in this action will be 45

17

days after the date on which the Court’s order denying the Motion to Consolidate is filed.

18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19
20

Dated: July 20, 2012

COOLEY LLP
By: /s/ Matthew D. Brown
Matthew D. Brown (196972)

21
22

Attorneys for Defendant LINKEDIN CORP.

23
24
25

Dated: July 20, 2012

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP

26

By: /s/ Sean P. Reis
Sean P. Reis (184044)

27

Attorneys for Plaintiff KATIE SZPYRKA

28
STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
CASE NO. 12-CV-3088-EJD

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3.

1
2
3

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Matthew D. Brown, attest that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.

4
5

Dated: July 20, 2012

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

/s/ Matthew D. Brown____________
Matthew D. Brown

1278679/SF

The stipulation is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Before the court will consider
extending Defendant's time to respond to the Complaint, and before the court will
consider consolidating this case with cases not already assigned to Judge Davila, the
parties must file and obtain a ruling on an administrative motion to consider whether
cases should be related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b).

DATED: July 23, 2012

_________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

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

STIP. TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
CASE NO. 12-CV-3088-EJD

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

4.