Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
MOTION by Defendant Google Inc. for leave to file excess pages (Surreply) (Moran, Mariah)
Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VULCAN GOLF, LLC, JOHN B. SANFILIPPPO & SONS, INC., BLITZ REALTY GROUP, INC., and VINCENTE E. "BO" JACKSON, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., OVERSEE.NET, SEDO LLC, DOTSTER, INC., AKA REVENUEDIRET.COM INTERNET REIT, INC. d/b/a/ IREIT, INC.; and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' AGREED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANTS' SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITATION Defendant Google Inc., (AGoogle@), by and through its attorneys, and on behalf of Defendants Oversee.Net, Sedo LLC, Dotster, Inc., and Internet Reit, Inc., respectfully moves this Court for leave to file Defendants' Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in excess of the page limit stated in Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules for the Northern District of Illinois. In support of this motion, Defendant Google states as follows: 1. On September 25, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of class ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07 CV 3371 The Honorable Blanche M. Manning Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
certification. (Dkt. 217.) Simultaneously, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file their reply brief in support of class certification in excess of the page limitation. (Dkt. 218.) Specifically, Plaintiffs requested that they be permitted to file an oversized brief that would not exceed 28 pages. Defendants did not oppose this request. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion October 8, 2008. (Dkt. 224.)
Plaintiffs' reply brief raised a number of complex issues. Indeed, on September
29, 2008, the Court directed Defendants to file a consolidated surreply to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (Dkt. 221.) Additionally, on October 1, 2008, the Court asked Plaintiffs to file a statement clarifying their position, which they did on October 2, 2008. (Dkt. 222 and Dkt. 223, respectively.) As a result of the complexity of Plaintiffs' motion, Defendants seek leave to file their consolidated surreply brief in excess of the page limitations set forth in Local Rule 7.1 so that they may be able to properly respond to Plaintiffs' motion and address the arguments against class certification. Defendants intend to file a brief within a 25-page limitation. 3. Defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs' counsel, Mark Bulgarelli, who reported that
Plaintiffs agree to the Defendants' request for additional pages. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Google Inc., respectfully requests that the Court grant Defendants leave to file their Surreply Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in excess of the page limit stated in Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules for the Northern District of Illinois, up to 25 pages. Respectfully submitted, GOOGLE INC. By: /s/ Joseph J. Duffy Jonathan M. Cyrluk Mariah E. Moran Stetler & Duffy, Ltd. 11 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Mariah E. Moran One of Google Inc.=s Attorneys
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mariah E. Moran, an attorney, hereby certify that on October 15, 2008, Defendants' Agreed Motion for Leave to File Defendants' Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification In Excess of Page Limitation was served on counsel of record via the court's CM/ECF electronic filing system.
/s/ Mariah E. Moran Moran E. Moran Joseph J. Duffy Jonathan M. Cyrluk Mariah E. Moran Stetler & Duffy, Ltd. 11 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?