Cohen v. Apple Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-05322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cohen v. Apple, Judge William Alsup granted in part plaintiffs’ deadline-extension request, setting opposition and reply dates while leaving Apple’s summary-judgment motion pending.
The plaintiffs and Apple Inc.; the order changed the briefing schedule for Apple’s summary-judgment motion and addressed the parties’ ongoing discovery.
What happened
In Cohen v. Apple Inc., the plaintiffs asked to move their deadline for opposing Apple’s summary-judgment motion from May 15 to June 15. Apple opposed that request, offering only a one-week extension, and alternatively asked the court to pause discovery.
The court found that plaintiffs needed a fair opportunity to review about 55,000 pages Apple had produced and to conduct the discovery allowed by earlier orders. It also found that plaintiffs had acted diligently and met the requirement to explain why more time was needed.
The court granted in part the extension request. In an order by Judge William Alsup, it set June 4 for plaintiffs’ opposition, June 11 for Apple’s reply, and July 2 for the hearing. The opinion does not expressly state a separate ruling on Apple’s request to pause discovery.
The detailed version
- Cohen v. Apple Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-05322
- William Alsup
- May 14, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs asked to extend their deadline to respond to Apple’s motion for summary judgment from May 15 to June 15. Apple opposed, offering to stipulate to only a one-week extension. Apple also alternatively sought a stay, meaning a pause, of all discovery while the court considered its summary-judgment motion.
Apple’s motion raised preemption and jurisdictional issues that had first appeared in its motion to dismiss. The court had previously denied that motion without prejudice to renewal under Rule 56, the rule governing summary judgment. The prior order stated that the parties needed reasonable discovery into issues raised by materials outside the pleadings and allowed immediate discovery.
Court’s reasoning
Plaintiffs had served Apple with their first document request on March 6. According to the opinion, Apple delayed producing documents and had not produced documents when it filed its summary-judgment motion nearly two months later. Apple then produced approximately 55,000 pages, apparently consisting only of publicly available documents while the parties continued to address protective-order disputes.
The court concluded that plaintiffs should have a fair opportunity to review the production. It rejected Apple’s arguments that plaintiffs’ familiarity with the motion and its supporting materials eliminated the need for more time; that plaintiffs had not explained their request with sufficient detail under Local Rule 6-3(a)(1); that plaintiffs had failed to pursue discovery promptly; and that no discovery was needed because the motion involved threshold legal issues. The court stated that earlier orders had already recognized the need for discovery and that plaintiffs had acted diligently.
The court also declined to intervene in any specific discovery dispute. It noted that Apple had not asked the court to resolve a particular dispute and had recently stated that the parties had not reached an impasse requiring court intervention.
Disposition
The order granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for an extension. Plaintiffs were given until June 4 to file their opposition, and Apple was given until June 11 to file its reply. The court stated that, pending further order, the motion would be heard on July 2 at 8:00 a.m. The opinion does not expressly state a separate disposition of Apple’s alternative request for a stay of discovery.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.