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.

Case No. 1:11-cv-5807
Hon. James F. Holderman
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim

COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF RAFEY S. BALABANIAN IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
COMSCORE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
I, Rafey S. Balabanian, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows:
1.

I am a Partner at the law firm of Edelson LLC, which has been retained to

represent Plaintiffs Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in this matter. I am
an adult over the age of 18 and I am fully competent to make this Declaration. I have personal
knowledge of all matters set forth herein. If called upon to testify as to such matters, I could and
would competently do so.
2.

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.)
3.

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.)

4.

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.
5.

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.
6.

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,

2

Inc., No. 4:11-cv-02584 (N.D. Cal.), which is due to be filed on November
15th.
7.

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.
Executed this 15th day of November 2013 at Chicago, Illinois.
/s/ Rafey S. Balabanian

3