Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 274

MOTION by Plaintiffs Jeff Dunstan, Mike Harris for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to dismiss 242 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Balabanian, Rafey)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE 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–cv–05807
Hon. James F. Holderman
Magistrate Judge Kim

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ON DEFENDANT COMSCORE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned
counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), respectfully move for a one-week extension of time
for Plaintiffs to file their Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss
Under Rule 12(b)(3) (“Motion to Dismiss”) and for Defendant to file its Reply in support of its
Motion. In support, Plaintiffs state as follows:
1.

On November 12, 2013, the Parties appeared before the Court for the presentment

of Defendant comScore’s Motion to Dismiss for improper venue. (Dkt. 271.)
2.

At the presentment hearing, Plaintiffs requested until November 15, 2013 to file

their Response to the Motion to Dismiss and comScore requested until November 29, 2013 to
file its Reply. The Court adopted the Parties’ proposed briefing schedule and took the Motion to
Dismiss under advisement. (Id.)
3.

Since the presentment hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ counsel has

been working on a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, but by Thursday, November 14, 2013, it
became clear that a short one-week extension of time to file said Response is necessary. (See

Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian, ¶ 4, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.)
4.

A one-week extension of Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss

is necessary because other professional commitments, mostly with respect to this case, have
slightly delayed the preparation and finalization of Plaintiffs’ Response brief. (Ex. A, ¶ 5.)
5.

In particular, the lead attorneys in this matter have been engaged in the following

litigation activity:
a.

Preparing for and engaging in oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion to Compel in this case before Magistrate Judge Kim on November
12th;

b.

Preparing for two depositions in this case of comScore’s employees that
took place on November 13th and 14th;

c.

Preparing for the deposition of Plaintiff Dunstan, set to take place on
November 19th, as well as the depositions of three more comScore
employees set to take place on November 20th, 21st and 22nd;

d.

Preparing a settlement demand on comScore to be served on November
18th, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Kim’s Standing Order on settlement
conferences, which is set to take place on November 25th;

e.

Preparing a Reply in Support of Class Certification in the case captioned
Cousineau v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:11-cv-01438 (W.D. Wash.), which
was filed the evening of November 12th;

f.

Preparing for and attending a mediation of a putative class action in the
case captioned Cabrera v. Geico, No., 0:12-cv-61390 (S.D. Fla.), which
took place on November 13th in Miami, Florida;

g.

Engaging in on-going mediation in the case Haught v. Motorola Mobility,
No. 1:12-cv-02515 (N.D. Ill.), presided over by Magistrate Judge Kim, the
final terms of which were agreed upon on November 14th; and

h.

Preparing a Reply in Support of a Motion to Lift Stay pursuant to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction in the case captioned Glauser v. GroupMe,
Inc., No. 4:11-cv-02584 (N.D. Cal.), which is due to be filed on November
15th.

2

(Ex. A, ¶ 6.)
6.

Given these and several other professional commitments that lead counsel has,

Plaintiffs are in need of an extra week to file their Response to comScore’s Motion to Dismiss.
(Ex. A, ¶ 7.)
7.

On November 14th, Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with counsel for comScore to

inquire as to whether comScore would object to the requested extension. comScore’s counsel
stated that Defendant takes no position on the requested extension. However, if the Court is
inclined to grant the extension, then comScore would request until December 6th to file its
Reply, giving it the same fourteen (14) day time frame in which to file said Reply.
8.

This motion is not being brought to delay these proceedings in any way and no

party will suffer any prejudice if the Court grants the relief requested herein. Further, the
requested extension will not alter any other deadlines set by the Court except with respect to the
briefing schedule on comScore’s Motion to Dismiss.
9.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) provides that the Court, for good cause shown, may extend

the time for a party to complete any required act.
10.

Here, there is good cause to extend the time for Plaintiffs to respond to

comScore’s Motion to Dismiss, and therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant
the instant motion.
Dated: November 15, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
By: /s/ Rafey S. Balabanian
One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

3

Jay Edelson
Rafey S. Balabanian
EDELSON LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Rafey S. Balabanian, an attorney, hereby certify that on November 15, 2013, I served
the above and foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion For A One-Week Extension Of Briefing Schedule
On Defendant Comscore’s Motion To Dismiss 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 15th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Rafey S. Balabanian

5