Li v. Apple Inc. et al

Filing 14

Li v. Apple Inc. et al

Doc. 14

David J. Antczak 215-988-2558 [e-mail]
Law Offices
One Logan Square
18TH and Cherry Streets

January 2, 2008 Via ECF and Federal Express Honorable E. Thomas Boyle United States District Court Eastern District of New York Long Island Federal Courthouse 100 Federal Plaza Central Islip, New York 11722 Re: Li v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 07-cv-04005-LDW-ETB

Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 215-988-2700 phone [phone] fax www.drinkerbiddle.com
CALIFORNIA DELAWARE ILLINOIS NEW JERSEY NEW YORK PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON DC WISCONSIN

Dear Judge Boyle: The undersigned represent the defendants in the above-referenced action. We write jointly to request an adjournment on the initial scheduling conference currently scheduled for January 11, 2008. The grounds for defendants' request are as follows: Defendants' counsel attempted on multiple occasions to speak with plaintiff's counsel, C. Jean Wang, on the telephone in preparation for the scheduling conference and pursuant to the Court's October 1, 2007 Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' efforts to contact Ms. Wang and to schedule a meet and confer session included telephone calls in October and November, additional telephone calls on December 12, 14, 21 and 24 (in response to a fax from Ms. Wang received 22 minutes prior to that call); faxed and e-mailed letters on December 17, 21 and 24; and an e-mail message on December 24. Ms. Wang, however, has yet to return any of these calls or respond to our letters and messages. Indeed, we called Ms. Wang twice today and were again unsuccessful in our attempts to speak with her. In addition, defendants have submitted pre-motion conference letters to Judge Wexler seeking a briefing schedule on defendants' anticipated motions to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Docket Nos. 6 and 7, filed on December 5 and 6, 2007, respectively. Plaintiff has not responded at all to these letters, notwithstanding her obligation to do so under Judge Wexler's Individual Practices. Defendants therefore have asked Judge Wexler to set a schedule for briefing their contemplated motions to dismiss. See Docket Nos. 11 and 13, filed on December 24 and 28, 2007, respectively. Given plaintiff's non-responsiveness and defendants' plan to file motions that would seek dismissal of this entire action, defendants respectfully request that the Court

Established 1849

Dockets.Justia.com

Honorable E. Thomas Boyle January 2, 2008 Page 2 adjourn the initial scheduling conference to a date thirty days after Judge Wexler rules on the motions to dismiss. Defendants appreciate the Court's consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, s/ David J. Antczak David J. Antczak Counsel for Defendant AT&T Inc. s/ Michael B. Miller Michael B. Miller Counsel for Defendants Apple Inc. and Steve Jobs cc: C. Jean Wang, Esquire (via ECF) Michael B. Miller, Esquire (via ECF) Daniel A. Sasse, Esquire, Crowell & Moring LLP (via e-mail)