Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 37

MOTION by Defendant comScore, Inc. for leave to file excess pages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Filed in error)(Somvichian, Whitty) (Docket Text modified by Clerks' Office.)

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,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:11-5807
)
) Hon. James F. Holderman
)
)
)
)
)

COMSCORE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMIT INSTANTER
Defendant comScore, Inc. (“comScore”) respectfully requests leave to file a brief in
excess of fifteen (15) pages in support of its Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1. On August 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”)
(Docket No. 1). The Complaint makes numerous and lengthy allegations under federal and state
law involving complex issues concerning comScore’s technology. The Complaint totals 124
paragraphs over 26 pages, and asserts claims under three different federal statutes, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and also includes a claim for unjust enrichment.
2. comScore’s Motion to Dismiss addresses numerous pleading deficiencies in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Specifically, comScore argues that the Complaint should be dismissed
because Plaintiffs consented to the conduct of which they complain; they lack standing to bring
their claims; and have failed to state claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored
Communications Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and for unjust
enrichment. An in depth analysis of the legal and factual issued raised by Plaintiffs’ Complaint
1242069/SF

is needed to address these arguments, and therefore comScore requires more than 15 pages to
adequately support its motion.
3. On November 1, 2011, comScore conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel and requested
that the parties stipulate to the submission of a brief in excess of the page limit and to a briefing
schedule, but Plaintiffs declined.
4. Given the length of the Complaint, the number of causes of action it alleges, and
the numerous issues it raises, comScore requires more than fifteen pages to adequately respond
to Plaintiffs’ allegations in its Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, comScore respectfully requests
leave to file a brief in excess of 15 pages instanter, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which does not
exceed 25 pages.
Dated: November 4, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Whitty Somvichian
Michael G. Rhodes,(admitted pro hac vice)
Whitty Somvichian, (admitted pro hac vice)
Ray Sardo,(admitted pro hac vice)
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Z. Smith (ARDC #6256687)
Leonard E. Hudson (ARDC # 6293044)
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7507
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant comScore, Inc.

2.
1242069/SF

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on November 4, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notifications of such filings
to the following:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jay Edelson
William Charles Gray
Steven W. Teppler
Ari Jonathan Scharg
EDELSON McGUIRE, LLC
350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone : [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Whitty Somvichian
Michael G. Rhodes,(admitted pro hac vice)
Whitty Somvichian, (admitted pro hac vice)
Ray Sardo,(admitted pro hac vice)
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David Z. Smith (ARDC #6256687)
Leonard E. Hudson (ARDC # 6293044)
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7507
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant comScore, Inc.

1242069/SF