Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 46

DECLARATION of Ray Sardo regarding response in opposition to motion 45 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Somvichian, Whitty)

EXHIBIT D

Case5:10-cv-02389-JW Document68

1

6

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
([e-mail])
MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972)
([e-mail])
JAMES M. PENNING (229727)
([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

7

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

8

12

NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
KASSRA P. NASSIRI (215405)
([e-mail])
CHARLES H. JUNG (217909)
([e-mail])
251 Kearny Street, Suite 501
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

13

Filed12/08/10 Page1 of 5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
3
4
5

9
10
11

MICHAEL J. ASCHENBRENER (pro hac
vice) ([e-mail])
BENJAMIN H. RICHMAN (pro hace vice)
([e-mail])
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14
15
16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE:
FACEBOOK PRIVACY LITIGATION

19
20
21

Case No. 10-cv-02389-JW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT (L.R. 6-2)
Courtroom: 8
Judge:
James Ware
Trial Date: None Set

22
23
24

This Stipulation is entered into by and among plaintiffs David Gould and Mike Robertson

25

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) (Plaintiffs and Facebook

26

collectively “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel.

27
28

WHEREAS, the complaint in Gould v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02389-JW
(“Gould”) was filed on May 28, 2010;

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 10-CV-02389 JW

Case5:10-cv-02389-JW Document68

WHEREAS, the complaint in Robertson v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02408-JF

1
2

(“Robertson”) was filed on June 1, 2010;
WHEREAS, this Court (Hon James Ware), by Order of July 26, 2010, related Gould and

3
4

Filed12/08/10 Page2 of 5

Robertson;

5

WHEREAS, by Order of August 20, 2010, the Court consolidated Gould and Robertson

6

and ordered the new caption to be In re Facebook Privacy Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-02389-JW

7

(and ordered Case No. 10-cv-02408-JW to be closed);1

8
9

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the abovecaptioned action on October 10, 2010;

10

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2010, the Court entered an Order extending from November

11

10, 2010 to December 10, 2010 as the deadline for Facebook to answer, move to dismiss, or

12

otherwise respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the above-captioned litigation;

13

WHEREAS, by Orders dated November 12 and 19, 2010, this Court granted

14

administrative motions relating several other cases against Facebook, Zynga, or both to the

15

above-captioned action (In re Facebook Privacy Litigation);

16

WHEREAS, in the November 12 and 19, 2010 Orders, this Court invited the parties in the

17

related cases to fully brief, by November 22, 2010, the issue of whether the related cases should

18

be consolidated and the issue of who should be appointed Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel;

19

WHEREAS, parties in the related cases filed briefing on November 22, 2010;

20

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs the above-captioned action filed briefing opposing consolidation

21

and seeking renewal of their appointment as Co-Lead Counsel and Co-Lead Plaintiff on

22

November 22, 2010;

23
24

WHEREAS, this Court has not yet issued a decision on consolidation and appointment of
Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel;

25
26
27
28

1

While efforts were undertaken to get the actions related and then consolidated, the Parties
stipulated to extensions of Facebook’s deadline to respond to the complaints. Orders granting
extensions pursuant to these stipulations were entered on June 14, July 27, and August 11 in
Robertson, and on June 24, July 27, and August 11 in Gould.

COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2.

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 10-CV-02389 JW

Case5:10-cv-02389-JW Document68

Filed12/08/10 Page3 of 5

1

WHEREAS, under Civil Local Rule 6-2, parties may file a stipulation requesting an order

2

extending the time within which to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the

3

Complaint; and

4

WHEREAS, extending the date for Facebook to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise

5

respond to the Complaint as set forth below will not alter the date of any event or deadline

6

already fixed by Court order;

7

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

8

1.

9
10
11

Facebook’s deadline to respond to the Complaint (answer, move, or otherwise

respond) is extended to and including the later of (a) December 22, 2010 or (b) 30 days after the
Court decides whether an amended complaint shall be filed.
2.

If the Court orders an amended complaint to be filed, Facebook is relieved of the

12

obligation of responding to the current Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and shall have 30

13

days following filing of the amended complaint to respond (answer, move, or otherwise respond),

14

unless a different date is ordered by the Court.

15
16

3.

Facebook agrees to confer with Plaintiffs on a briefing and hearing schedule

before filing any motion in response to the operative complaint.

17
18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19
20

Dated: December 8, 2010

/s/ Matthew D. Brown
Matthew D. Brown
Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.

21
22
23

COOLEY LLP

Dated: December 8, 2010

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

24
25
26

/s/ Michael J. Aschenbrener
Michael J. Aschenbrener (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3.

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 10-CV-02389 JW

Case5:10-cv-02389-JW Document68

1

Dated: December 8, 2010

2

Filed12/08/10 Page4 of 5

NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
/s/ Kassra P. Nassiri
Kassra P. Nassiri
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3
4
5

[PROPOSED] ORDER

6
7

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: December ____, 2010
THE HONORABLE JAMES WARE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

4.

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 10-CV-02389 JW

Case5:10-cv-02389-JW Document68

Filed12/08/10 Page5 of 5

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, Subparagraph B, the undersigned attests that

3

all parties have concurred in the filing of this Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to

4

Complaint (L.R. 6-1(a)).

5
6

Dated: December 8, 2010

/s/ Matthew D. Brown
Matthew D. Brown

7
8

901609 v2/HN

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

5.

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, CASE NO. 10-CV-02389 JW