Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03328/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03328-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-03328-RS 

ORDER VACATING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE, 

AND DIRECTING ADDITIONAL MEET 

AND CONFER

Plaintiffs seek a 90-day extension of the briefing schedule and hearing date for their class 

certification motion.1 In the meet and confer process, defendant expressed a willingness to 

stipulate to such an extension, provided, (1) the parties reached agreement on a briefing schedule 

that did not compress defendant’s response time, (2) plaintiffs did not represent to the court that 

extension was made necessary by any act or omission on defendant’s part, and, (3) in the event the 

Supreme Court grants the pending petition for a writ of certiorari , the parties would jointly seek a 

stay of all trial court proceedings, including discovery. 

Any rejection by plaintiff of the first condition would have been unreasonable. Given that 

a stipulation would not have required argument as to why an extension was necessary, rejection of 

the second condition likewise was unreasonable. Even assuming plaintiffs reasonably could have 

objected to the third proposed condition, this remains a simple scheduling matter that the parties 

 

1 Although plaintiffs invoke Civil Rule 7-11, such requests are governed by Civil Local Rule 6-3. 

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 169 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 10-cv-03328-RS

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

could and should have resolved between themselves, without court intervention. Counsel are 

directed to redouble their efforts in all future meet and confer negotiations to ensure that this 

matter is litigated in a professional manner that preserves court resources and minimizes the costs 

to the parties.

The present briefing schedule and hearing date are vacated. The parties shall meet and 

confer and jointly submit a proposed new briefing schedule and hearing date that extends the time 

by approximately 90 days, taking into account all reasonable scheduling concerns, and preserving 

the length of defendant’s period for filing opposition. In the event the Supreme Court grants the 

pending petition, the parties shall then meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on whether a 

stay is warranted at that time. In the event the parties cannot agree on the propriety of a stay, 

defendant may bring a motion at that juncture. While such a motion would not ordinarily 

constitute a “miscellaneous administrative matter,” it shall be filed and opposed under the page 

length and timing requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-11. No reply brief shall be filed and no 

hearing shall be set or held.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 169 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 2