Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.
Filing
146
MOTION by Plaintiffs Jeff Dunstan, Mike Harris for leave to file excess pages (Thomassen, Benjamin)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
MIKE HARRIS and JEFF DUNSTAN,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 1:11-5807
Hon. James F. Holderman
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Plaintiffs Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned
counsel, respectfully move the Court for leave to file an oversized brief in support of their
supplemental motion for class certification. In support, Plaintiffs state as follows:
1.
Pursuant to this Court’s October 29, 2012 Order, (Dkt. 137), Plaintiffs’
supplemental motion for class certification is due on January 15, 2013. Under Local Rule 7-1,
Plaintiffs’ brief in support of their supplemental motion for class certification is limited to 15
pages in length.
2.
While Plaintiffs are still drafting and finalizing the brief in support of their
supplemental motion for class certification, Plaintiffs believe that—particularly in light of the
extensive class discovery conducted by the Parties over the past year—it will be difficult to set
forth the relevant facts and make the necessary arguments in 15 pages or less.
3.
Plaintiffs have, and will, make their greatest efforts to keep the brief as short and
succinct as possible. However, Plaintiffs believe in good faith that the filing of a brief in excess
1
of 15 pages will be necessary to fully and effectively set forth both (1) a thorough factual record
and (2) all arguments in support of class certification.
4.
While Plaintiffs are presently unable to attach their finalized brief to this Motion
(i.e., in compliance with this Court’s Standing Order regarding motion practice) and do not know
at this time precisely how many pages they will need for their brief in support of their
supplemental motion for class certification, Plaintiffs are confident that they can fully and
effectively present their brief in 30 pages or less.
5.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendant, and Plaintiffs’
counsel is authorized to state that Defendant has no objection to Plaintiffs’ request to submit a
brief in excess of 15 pages, but not exceeding 30 pages, so long as Defendant, in turn, is granted
leave to file a response brief also in excess of 15 pages, but not exceeding 30 pages. Plaintiffs
have no objection to Defendant filing such an oversize response brief.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order
granting them leave to file a memorandum of law in support of their supplemental motion for
class certification in excess of 15 pages, but not to exceed 30 pages.
//
//
//
//
2
Dated: January 7, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
MIKE HARRIS AND JEFF DUNSTAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS,
By: /s/ Benjamin S. Thomassen
One of their attorneys
Jay Edelson
Rafey S. Balabanian
Ari J. Scharg
Chandler Givens
Benjamin S. Thomassen
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
jedelson@edelson.com
rbalabanian@edelson.com
ascharg@edelson.com
cgivens@edelson.com
bthomassen@edelson.com
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Benjamin S. Thomassen, an attorney, certify that on January 7, 2013, I served the
above and foregoing Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Oversized Brief in
Support of Supplemental Motion for Class Certification, by causing true and accurate copies of
such paper to be filed and transmitted to all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic
filing system, on this the 7th day of January, 2013.
/s/ Benjamin S. Thomassen
4
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?