Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03824-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc
Defendant
Uriel Marcus
Plaintiff
Benedict Verceles
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

URIEL MARCUS, BENEDICT

VERCELES, and Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLE INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 14-03824 WHA

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

DEPOSITIONS

Two weeks ago, the parties were ordered to conduct limited discovery on the safety issue

presented in defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were ordered to sit for depositions by

March 31, 2015, and to produce their operating manuals and all paperwork that came with their

units, including receipts, at least forty hours before their depositions (Dkt. No. 67).

Now, four days before their depositions were ordered to be completed, plaintiffs have

filed a motion stating that their depositions are unnecessary and in the alternative, have asked for

a thirty-day extension to complete their depositions. This is the third time plaintiffs have

requested an extension in this case. Plaintiffs’ depositions shall be completed by APRIL 3, 2015.

All other dates contained in the March 16 order remain in place (Dkt. No. 67). No more

extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03824-WHA Document 70 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 1