Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael E. Davis, Aka Tony Davis, Vince Ferragamo, and Billy v. Electronic Arts Inc

July 14, 2011

MICHAEL E. DAVIS, AKA TONY DAVIS, VINCE FERRAGAMO, AND BILLY JOE DUPREE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Richard Seeborg United States District Court Northern District OF California

*E-Filed 7/14/11*

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 425.16 AND MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the parties hereby submit this Stipulated Request for an Order staying the briefing schedule and the hearing date on defendant Electronic Arts Inc.'s ("EA") Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P. § 425.16 (Docket No. 62) ("Anti-SLAPP Motion") and EA's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 63).

WHEREAS, on January 6, 2011, pursuant to a stipulation to extend time to respond to the First Amended Complaint, EA filed its original motion to dismiss and Anti-SLAPP Motion (Docket No. 20), which was set for hearing February 24, 2011;

WHEREAS, on February 1, 2011, plaintiffs Michael E. Davis, Vince Ferragamo, and Billy Joe Dupree (collectively "Plaintiffs") served written discovery on EA;

WHEREAS, the parties stipulated (Docket No. 33) to a briefing schedule and July 14, 2011 hearing date on EA's original motion to dismiss and Anti-SLAPP motion in order to allow 12 the parties time to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' proposed discovery, which stipulation the Court subsequently entered (Docket Nos. 35 and 44);

WHEREAS, EA served objections to Plaintiffs' written discovery on March 4, 2011 and 15 the parties subsequently met and conferred regarding EA's responses to Plaintiffs' discovery but 16 were unable to resolve their differences regarding that discovery and therefore on April 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 50);

WHEREAS, on May 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Ryu set the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion 19 to compel for June 16, 2011;

WHEREAS on May 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order (Docket No. 57) granting the 21 parties' proposed briefing schedule and hearing dates for EA's Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss, whereby EA's Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss were to be filed on June 9, 2011, Plaintiffs' oppositions to these motions were due on July 21, 2011, EA's reply briefs were 24 due on August 4, 2011, and a hearing date for EA's motions was set for August 25, 2011;

WHEREAS, pursuant to that stipulation and order, EA filed both its Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss on June 9, 2011 (Docket Nos. 62 & 63);

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Ryu issued a Minute Order (Docket No. 69) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel and ordered EA to respond to certain interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents by July 7, 2011 so that Plaintiffs could incorporate the discovery into their Oppositions to EA's Anti- SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss;

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2011, EA filed a Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pre- Trial Order ("Motion for Relief") (Docket No. 71) objecting to Magistrate Judge Ryu's discovery Order;

WHEREAS, on July 5, 2011 Magistrate Judge Ryu issued a written Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel (Docket No. 73);

WHEREAS, on July 8, 2011, the Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule on EA's Motion for Relief (Docket No. 74) whereby EA has until July 15, 2011 to file a supplemental brief and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.