From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 29, 2011
Master File No. 11-CV-1758-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

Master File No. 11-CV-1758-EJD

11-29-2011

IN RE APPLE IN-APP PURCHASE LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All Actions

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS STUART C. PLUNKETT MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By STUART C. PLUNKETT Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. MICHAEL J. BONI JOSHUA D. SNYDER BONI & ZACK LLC By JOSHUA D. SNYDER Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs


PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607)

STUART C. PLUNKETT (CA SBN 187971)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

APPLE INC.

CLASS ACTION


STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

Judge: Honorable Edward J. Davila

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby submits this Stipulated Request for Order Enlarging Time to File Reply Brief.

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011, Apple filed a Motion to Stay Discovery and noticed the motion for hearing on February 17, 2012;

WHEREAS plaintiffs' opposition to the motion was due November 28, 2011;

WHEREAS plaintiffs filed their opposition brief a few days early, on November 23, 2011;

WHEREAS Apple's reply brief is now due November 30, 2011;

WHEREAS the seven-day reply period generated by the filing date of the opposition includes the Thanksgiving holiday;

WHEREAS certain attorneys for Apple are on vacation over the Thanksgiving holiday;

WHEREAS Apple requested that plaintiffs stipulate to extend Apple's time to file a reply brief to December 5, 2011;

WHEREAS the Court has not previously entered an order modifying time in this action;

WHEREAS the parties have previously stipulated to extend Apple's time to respond to the complaints in the individual action (prior to consolidation in this proceeding);

WHEREAS the requested time modification would not affect any schedule set by the Court;

THEREFORE, plaintiffs and Apple stipulate that Apple's time to file its reply brief in support of the motion to stay discovery should be extended to December 5, 2011.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS

STUART C. PLUNKETT

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By STUART C. PLUNKETT

Attorneys for Defendant

APPLE INC.

MICHAEL J. BONI

JOSHUA D. SNYDER

BONI & ZACK LLC

By JOSHUA D. SNYDER

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

I, Kay Fitz-Patrick, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file the foregoing document. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Stuart C. Plunkett and Joshua D. Snyder have concurred in this filing.

Kay Fitz-Patrick

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hon. Edward J. Davila

United States District Judge


Summaries of

In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 29, 2011
Master File No. 11-CV-1758-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLE IN-APP PURCHASE LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

Master File No. 11-CV-1758-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)