Williams v. Apple, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 ANDREA M WILLIAMS, et al., Case No. 19-CV-04700-LHK 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 14 v. OF TIME AND MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL 15 APPLE, INC., Dkt. Nos. 86, 87 16 Defendant. 17 18 On February 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an emergency ex parte request for extension of time 19 to file their class certification reply, ECF No. 86 (“ex parte request”), and an accompanying 20 administrative motion to file a document under seal, ECF No. 87. Plaintiffs argue that because an 21 exhibit to Defendant’s class certification opposition bears the wrong Bates number, Defendant 22 should have to file a corrected opposition, and Plaintiffs should have a week to file their reply to 23 that corrected opposition. ECF No. 86 at 1, 4. February 12, 2021 is the current deadline for 24 Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification. 25 On February 10, 2021, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte request. ECF 26 No. 88. Defendant makes two arguments. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are not prejudiced 27 1 1 by the one erroneous Bates number. Specifically, Defendant avers that on February 8, 2021—less 2 || than three hours after Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the erroneous Bates number—Defendant 3 provided Plaintiffs with the exhibit’s correct Bates number. Pomeroy Decl. §/ 3, ECF No. 88-1. 4 Defendant further avers that on the morning of February 9, 2021, Defendant confirmed to 5 Plaintiffs that no other documents cited in Defendant’s class certification opposition had erroneous 6 Bates numbers. Jd. 5. 7 Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have violated Civil Local Rule 7-10 by failing to 8 cite authority that authorizes an ex parte filing here. ECF No. 88 at 2-3. As Defendant correctly 9 notes, this Court has denied ex parte motions in other cases on the same ground. See Garrison v. 10 Oracle Corp., 159 F. Supp. 3d 1044, 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (striking ex parte motion because it 11 “does not cite to any authority permitting the filing of an ex parte motion”); Bertuccio v. San 12 || Benito Cty, No. 13-CV-01339-LHK, 2013 WL 2147421, at *3 (N.D Cal. May 15, 2013) (“None 13 of Plaintiffs’ motions identified any authorization for her ex parte communications. This alone 14 would justify denial... .”). 3 15 The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs’ ex parte request fails to show prejudice 16 || and violates Civil Local Rule 7-10. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte request, i 17 ECF No. 86, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ accompanying administrative motion to file a 18 document under seal, ECF No. 87. 19 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: February 11, 2021 LUCY @. KOH 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 19-CV-04700-LHK ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION TO FILE