Opinion
2:22-cv-01282-JLR
06-21-2023
In Re Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software Litigation This Documents Refers to: All Actions
Joseph P. Guglielmo (admitted pro hac vice) SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP Gary F. Lynch (admitted pro hac vice) LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP Kim D. Stephens, P.S., WSBA #11984 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Counsel for Plaintiffs James P. Savitt SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP Samantha L. Southall (admitted pro hac vice) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Counsel for Defendant Zillow Group Nicola Menaldo Anna Mouw Thompson PERKINS COIE James G. Snell (admitted pro hac vice) PERKINS COIE Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation
Joseph P. Guglielmo (admitted pro hac vice) SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP Gary F. Lynch (admitted pro hac vice) LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP Kim D. Stephens, P.S., WSBA #11984 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Counsel for Plaintiffs
James P. Savitt SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP Samantha L. Southall (admitted pro hac vice) BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Counsel for Defendant Zillow Group
Nicola Menaldo Anna Mouw Thompson PERKINS COIE James G. Snell (admitted pro hac vice) PERKINS COIE Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE
THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Note on Motion Calendar: June 21, 2023
On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 44) against Defendants Zillow Group, Inc. (“Zillow”) and Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”). On June 6, 2023, Defendants Zillow and Microsoft filed their respective Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 53 and 54). The Motions are currently noted for June 30, 2023 and Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion is due June 26, 2023. By and through their respective counsel, the parties stipulated to and now jointly and respectfully request that the Court approve an extension of the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss to July 31, 2023 and for Defendants to file any reply to September 8, 2023.
An extension may be justified at the discretion of the Court if the request for an extension is timely and the request is not made in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Good cause exists to grant the stipulation. The parties agree that this request is supported by good cause. This action involves nine individually named plaintiffs, two defendants, a putative nationwide class pursuing two claims under Washington law, five alternative statewide classes pursuing nine alternative claims under the laws of four other states, and complex questions of statutory interpretation. Pursuant to L.C.R. 7, Defendants were each previously granted leave (ECF No. 52) permitting an overlength filing in the amount of 11,900 words, an increase of 3,500 words. Thus, Plaintiffs and Defendants seek extensions to the response and reply times given the complexity and the length of the responsive and forthcoming oppositions. Extending the foregoing deadline will not impact other deadlines in this case. In view of the number, complexity, and importance of the issues raised by Defendants' two motions to dismiss, the parties agree that Plaintiffs' opposition to both motions shall be due on July 31, 2023. The parties further agree that Defendants' replies shall be due on September 8, 2023, with re-noting of the motion for September 8, 2023.
SO ORDERED.