Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03329/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03329-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

EDWARD O’BANNON, et al. 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 

ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS 

INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING 

COMPANY,

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 09-3329 CW 

ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART DEFENDANT 

NCAA’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE 

FURTHER BRIEFING 

 The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has filed 

an administrative motion for leave to file supplemental briefing 

in support of its motion for de novo review of Magistrate Judge 

Cousins’ order granting Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees 

and granting in part Plaintiffs’ request for costs and expenses. 

The NCAA seeks to address the Ninth Circuit’s September 30, 2015 

opinion affirming in part and reversing in part this Court’s 

judgment. See O’Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

 Having considered the parties’ papers and the record in this 

case, the Court grants in part the NCAA’s motion for leave to file 

further briefing. Within four weeks of the date of this order, 

the NCAA may file a brief of ten pages or less, addressing its 

position regarding the impact the Ninth Circuit’s decision has on 

the overall scope of Plaintiffs’ success. The Court will not 

entertain argument regarding specific time entries that are 

purportedly related only to pursuing the remedy reversed by the 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 455 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ninth Circuit. Within two weeks thereafter Plaintiffs may file a 

response of ten pages or less. 

 The Court is mindful that Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing en 

banc is pending before the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit 

grants rehearing en banc before the parties file their further 

briefs, the deadlines in this order will be vacated and the 

parties should wait for further instructions from the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 1, 2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 455 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2