Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01811/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01811-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 2/17/11** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IN RE SONY PS3 OTHER OS 

LITIGATION 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-1811 RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

 By administrative motion, plaintiffs seek leave to file a supplemental request for judicial 

notice in connection with the motion to dismiss that was under submission at the time they filed 

their administrative motion. The materials plaintiffs seek to have judicially noticed contain 

purported admissions by defendant that it is in contractual privity with plaintiffs with respect to their 

use of the Play Station Network, pursuant to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User 

Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”). In the briefing on the motion to dismiss, there appeared to be 

no dispute that there was contractual privity between defendants and at least those plaintiffs who 

utilized the PSN, by virtue of the PSN User Agreement. Additionally, defendant raised no 

contention that privity was lacking between it and plaintiffs with respect to the license agreements 

governing use of PS3 software. The question was whether privity existed with respect to the sales

of the PS3 devices themselves. In arguing that they had shown, or did not need to show, privity, 

plaintiffs relied on the software license and the PSN User Agreement only tangentially, as part of 

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 162 Filed 02/17/11 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

For the Northern District of California 

their assertion that they had alleged “direct dealings,” sufficient to bring them within the holding of 

U.S. Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp., 228 Cal.App.3d 1431 (1991). Plaintiffs did not 

articulate a contention the privity between the parties under the license agreement and/or the PSN 

User Agreement effectively created privity with respect to the sales transactions. 

 To the extent plaintiffs intended to rely on contractual privity in the license agreement and/or 

the PSN User Agreement, the purported admissions they now seek leave to introduce are merely 

cumulative, as privity under those agreements was not in dispute. Additionally, because the order 

on the motion to dismiss has issued, the request for leave to file supplemental material is moot. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 2/17/11 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 162 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 2