Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03328/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03328-8/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 

118007 Case No. CV-10-3328 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

BRIAN D. HENRI (State Bar No. 200205) 

bhenri@twtlaw.com

MATTHEW W. MESKELL (State Bar No. 208263) 

mmeskell@twtlaw.com

W. PAUL SCHUCK (State Bar No. 203717) 

pschuck@twtlaw.com 

THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER LLP 

Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350 

San Francisco, California 94111-4037 

Telephone: (415) 820-0400 

Facsimile: (415) 820-0405 

JOSEPH E. THOMAS (State Bar No. 101443) 

jthomas@twtlaw.com 

MICHAEL I. KATZ (State Bar No. 181728) 

mkatz@twtlaw.com 

THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER LLP 

18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 230 

Irvine, California 92612 

Telephone: (949) 679-6400 

Facsimile: (949) 679-6405 

AUSTIN TIGHE (admitted pro hac vice)

austin@feazell-tighe.com

FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP 

6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard 

Building C-101 

Austin, Texas 78730 

Telephone: (512) 372-8100 

Facsimile: (512) 372-8140 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MICHAEL E. DAVIS, aka TONY DAVIS, 

VINCE FERRAGAMO, and BILLY JOE 

DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 10-cv-3328 RS 

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 

*E-Filed 7/14/11*

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 5
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 

118007 1 Case No. CV-10-3328 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

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 

the parties subsequently met and conferred regarding EA’s responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery but 

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 

to compel for June 16, 2011; 

WHEREAS on May 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order (Docket No. 57) granting the 

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 

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 

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

26 

118007 2 Case No. CV-10-3328 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

23

24 

25 

27

28 

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 AntiSLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss; 

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2011, EA filed a Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive PreTrial 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 Plaintiffs have until July 29, 2011 to file an opposition; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs requested that EA agree to a stay on the briefing and hearing of 

both the Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 62 & 63) pending resolution 

of the parties’ discovery disputes and EA’s objection to Magistrate Judge Ryu’s Orders; 

WHEREAS, EA contends that a stay on the briefing and hearing of EA’s Motion to 

Dismiss is not necessary because it is a Rule 12(b)(6) that does not require discovery, but 

nevertheless agrees to Plaintiffs’ request so that EA’s Anti-SLAPP motion and Motion to Dismiss 

may be heard together; 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate as follows: 

STIPULATION 

1. Plaintiffs and EA, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and 

respectfully request a stay of the briefing and hearing on EA’s and Anti-SLAPP Motion and 

Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 62 & 63) pending resolution of the parties’ dispute regarding 

discovery. 

2. After resolution of the parties’ discovery dispute and objection to Magistrate Judge 

Ryu’s Orders, the parties agree to meet and confer to propose an appropriate schedule for 

resolution of EA’s Anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 62 & 63). 

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 3 of 5
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 

118007 3 Case No. CV-10-3328 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Both parties agree to the stipulation as indicated by their signatures below. The parties 

respectfully request that the Court approve the stipulation. A form of the proposed Order is filed 

herewith. 

Dated: July 13, 2011 THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER, LLP 

By: /s/ Brian D. Henri 

BRIAN D. HENRI 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL 

DAVIS, VINCE FERRAGAMO, and 

BILLY JOE DUPREE 

Dated: July 13, 2011 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

By: /s/ R. James Slaughter 

R. JAMES SLAUGHTER 

R. ADAM LAURIDSEN 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. 

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section 10(b), Brian D. Henri, the efiler of this 

stipulation, hereby attests that R. James Slaughter concurs in the efiling of this stipulation. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having considered the above joint request and good cause appearing therefore, 

HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 

1) The briefing schedule and hearing date on EA’s and Anti-SLAPP Motion and 

Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 62 & 63) is stayed pending resolution of the 

parties’ dispute regarding discovery; 

2) After resolution of the parties’ discovery dispute and objections to Magistrate 

Judge Ryu’s Discovery Orders (Docket Nos. 69 and 73), the parties shall 

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 4 of 5
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 

118007 4 Case No. CV-10-3328 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

promptly meet and confer to propose an appropriate schedule for resolution of 

EA’s Motion to Strike Pursuant To C.C.P. § 425.16 and Motion to Dismiss 

(Docket Nos. 62 & 63). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2011 

______________________________________

HON. RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA 

7/14

Case 3:10-cv-03328-RS Document 78 Filed 07/14/11 Page 5 of 5