Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04050/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04050-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TImothy P. Rumberger
Plaintiff
Sprint Corporation
Defendant

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

TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SPRINT CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04050 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court notes that while Plaintiff argues that his counsel has substantial experience

prosecuting complex litigation and class action lawsuits, he has not submitted any supporting

evidence. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a declaration providing such evidence by no

later than September 14, 2007.

Case 3:05-cv-04050-JSW Document 68 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Plaintiff represents that counsel investigated the option of publishing notice in a national

publication, but that “cost comparisons versus effectiveness seriously militated against

such expenditure.” What national publications did counsel investigate and what were

the costs of providing notice through such publications?

(2) What is the cost of publishing a notice one time in the four California newspapers

proposed by the parties? Are the parties intending to publish the notice in papers

distributed on a weekend or weekday? 

(3) Did the parties investigate the costs of providing notice in any other newspapers

distributed beyond the proposed four in an effort to notify people who live outside of the

four metropolitan areas? If so, what did the parties discover?

(4) Presumably, posting the notice on Sprint’s internet website would not cost Sprint money

and would likely reach many of Sprint’s customers nationwide. Is Sprint going to post

the notice on its internet website? If not, why not?

(5) Have the parties provided the notice to appropriate federal and state officials as required

by 28 U.S.C. § 1715?

(6) Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: September 6, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04050-JSW Document 68 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2