Redstone et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 13

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Pursuant to Track "D" by Google, Inc.. (Lambert, Jade)

Redstone et al v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JOHN E. REDSTONE, KARL H. SCHULZ, and DEAN M. BASTILLA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff s , vs. GOOGLE INC. Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 3:10-cv-00400-JPG-DGW CLASS ACTION

JOINT MOTION FOR TRACK REASSIGNMENT Plaintiffs and Defendant, Google Inc., by and through their respective counsel, have conferred and jointly move the Court for an Order reassigning the above-captioned case from Track B to Track D. In support of this Motion, the parties state as follows: 1. On May 28, 2010, Plaintiffs instituted this action by filing a putative class action

complaint which alleges that Google violated the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., by allegedly using its "Street View" vehicles to receive electronic data being transmitted over open wireless ("Wi-Fi") Internet connections. 2. On June 9 2010, counsel for Google entered an appearance, which triggered track

assignment and the setting of a presumptive trial date. 3. Local Rule 16.1 provides that the judicial officer to whom a case is assigned will

assign a presumptive trial month based on one of four case tracks.

Dockets.Justia.com

4.

Pursuant to the local rules, Track "B" cases are presumptively set for trial 11-14

months after a defendant's appearance. Examples of Track "B" cases include simple tort and contract cases. 5. By contrast, Track "D" is reserved for proposed class actions, and such cases are

presumptively set for trial 19-24 months after the first appearance of a defendant. 6. 2011. 7. Notably, this case is captioned as a class action, and the Complaint includes On June 10, 2010, this matter was assigned to Track "B" and set for trial in June

allegations in support of certification. Indeed, similar actions have been filed in multiple federal districts and a motion is pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order transferring this action and similar actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. 8. Because this case is a proposed class action, discovery will certainly take more

time than is allotted under Track "B." As noted in Local Rule 23.1(a), "Proposed class actions pose complex scheduling and discovery issues which are not addressed by the standard `Joint Report of the Parties and Proposed Scheduling and Discovery Order.'" 9. 10. Therefore, the Parties believe that this case warrants reassignment to Track "D." Accordingly, the Parties have based their Joint Report and Proposed Scheduling

and Discovery Order on a June 2012 presumptive trial month. 11. Should the Court deny this Motion for Track Reassignment, however, the Parties

respectfully request leave to amend their Proposed Scheduling and Discovery Order. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Google Inc. agree and jointly move the Court for an Order reassigning the above-captioned action to Track "D."

DATED: July 19, 2010

By: /s/ Aaron M. Zigler (w/ consent)

By: /s/ Jade R. Lambert

KOREIN TILLERY One U.S. Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PERKINS COIE LLP 131 S. Dearborn, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60603

Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify this 19th day of July, 2010 that I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the Court's CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing to the following: Aaron M. Zigler Stephen M. Tillery KOREIN TILLERY One U.S. Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Stephen A. Swedlow KOREIN TILLERY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1940 Chicago, IL 60601

By __/s/ Jade R. Lambert _________ One of the attorneys for Google Inc.