Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00453/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00453-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PATH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Joint Case Management Statement (“JCMS”) filed on 

December 8, 2015, in which the parties describe various disputes among them and ask the Court to 

resolve, or at least address, those disputes at the motion hearing scheduled for December 10, 2015. 

There are motions in four other cases set for hearing tomorrow, so the Court cannot 

accommodate the parties’ request for a full discussion of these recently-identified disputes1at that 

time. The Court will, however, hear argument regarding the discovery disputes set forth in the 

parties’ July 17, 2015 Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 562 at 4-8,

2

so that those 

disputes can be resolved. 

Argument concerning the discovery disputes will take no more than 20 minutes. Plaintiffs 

have 10 minutes (although they may not need that long). The various App Defendants may also 

have 10 minutes collectively and will inform the Court tomorrow how that time will be divided. 

The Court also now sets a further Case Management Conference on Tuesday, January 5, 

2016 at 9:30 a.m. The parties are ordered to meet and confer, and submit competing proposed 

scheduling orders, concerning whether to allow the filing of summary judgment motions before 

 

1

The parties filed their JCMS at 4:49 p.m. yesterday.

2

The pages refer to the pagination in the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. 

Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST Document 595 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

class certification and whether to allow the filing of multiple class certification motions on 

different dates. (Presently, the Court’s answer to both questions is in the negative, but the Court 

retains an open mind.) The same filing should also identify all outstanding discovery disputes in 

sufficient detail that the Court can resolve all or most of them on January 5, 2016 or, in the 

alternative, determine whether to refer the disputes to a Magistrate Judge. If any party’s proposals 

require adjustment of the existing case schedule, such adjustments must be clearly set forth and the 

reasons for them explained. The parties can identify further appropriate topics for this filing at 

tomorrow’s hearing and propose a filing date. 

It is evident from the JCMS that this case requires more active case management. 

Accordingly, the Court will set additional future case management conferences at the January 5, 

2016 conference. The selection of particular dates will depend on the resolution of the parties’

larger disputes about the scheduling of class certification and summary judgment briefing. 

For the sake of the efficient use of courtroom time, the Court strongly encourages the App 

Defendants to select a presumptive spokesperson who will speak for them at all future hearings on 

case-wide matters, and to identify that person on December 10, 2015. (As the JCMS makes clear, 

Apple is in a somewhat different position from the other defendants, and as to it the Court’s 

suggestion is more tentative.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST Document 595 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 2