Saeedy v. Microsoft Corp.

Full title: NOAH SAEEDY et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Sep 27, 2023

2:23-cv-01104-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sep. 27, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-01104-BJR

09-27-2023

NOAH SAEEDY et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation Steven M. Rummage, WSBA No. 11168, Fred B. Burnside, WSBA No. 32491, Jaime Drozd, WSBA No. 35742 James Moon, pro hac vice SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alexander A. Baehr, WSBA No. 25320 BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, PC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ekwan E. Rhow, pro hac vice, Marc E. Masters, pro hac vice, Barr Benyamin, pro hac vice GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathan Rotter, pro hac vice, Raymond D. Sulentic, pro hac vice, Kara M. Wolke, pro hac vice CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Glenn A. Danas, pro hac vice, Yana Hart, pro hac vice, Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, pro hac vice

Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Judge

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation Steven M. Rummage, WSBA No. 11168, Fred B. Burnside, WSBA No. 32491, Jaime Drozd, WSBA No. 35742

James Moon, pro hac vice

SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alexander A. Baehr, WSBA No. 25320

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, PC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ekwan E. Rhow, pro hac vice, Marc E. Masters, pro hac vice, Barr Benyamin, pro hac vice

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathan Rotter, pro hac vice, Raymond D. Sulentic, pro hac vice, Kara M. Wolke, pro hac vice

CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Glenn A. Danas, pro hac vice, Yana Hart, pro hac vice, Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, pro hac vice

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND EXTENDING INITIAL DISCOVERY DEADLINES [DKT. 29]

Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Noah Saeedy, Vishal Shah, Tina Wilkinson, and M.S. and Defendant Microsoft Corporation, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 21, 2023, and served Microsoft with the Complaint and Summons on July 26, 2023.

2. The parties agree, subject to the Court's approval, that Microsoft may have until September 29, 2023 to respond to the Complaint by answer, a Rule 12 motion, and/or a motion to compel arbitration.

3. The parties further agree, subject to the Court's approval, that the deadlines set forth in the Court's Order Regarding Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report FRCP 26(f) [Dkt. 29] shall be extended as follows, dated from the earlier of either when the Court's issues its Order on a responsive motion filed by Defendant or when the Defendant files its Answer: Rule 26 Conference (2 weeks after Order(s) or Answer); Initial Disclosures (4 weeks after Order(s) or Answer); Joint Status Report (6 weeks after Order(s) or Answer).

4. Good cause exists to extend the deadline to respond to the Complaint in order to provide Defendant additional time to consider the issues presented in the Complaint and for the parties to engage in the necessary meet and confer process required by the Court prior to the filing of any motion that may be dispositive in whole or part of the Complaint. Good cause exists to extend the initial discovery deadlines because it will conserve both the parties' and the Court's resources prior to a decision on a potential dispositive motion or an Answer by Defendants.

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. The deadline for Microsoft's response to the Complaint is extended to September 29, 2023. Initial Scheduling Dates, ECF No. 29, are hereby extended by 60 days. Further extensions may only be granted by the Court on a showing of good cause.