Williams v. Apple, Inc.
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:19-cv-04700
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Williams v. Apple, Inc., Judge Koh denied plaintiffs’ extension request and denied as moot their sealing motion after a Bates-number dispute.
The plaintiffs’ deadline for filing their class-certification reply was not extended, and their related request to file a document under seal was denied as moot. Apple opposed both requests.
What happened
In Williams v. Apple, Inc., the plaintiffs asked for more time to reply to Apple’s opposition to class certification. They said an exhibit had the wrong Bates number, meaning the document reference was incorrect.
Apple responded that it quickly provided the correct number and confirmed that no other cited documents had numbering errors. Apple also argued that the plaintiffs had not cited authority allowing an emergency filing of this kind.
Judge Lucy Koh denied the extension request because the plaintiffs had not shown prejudice and had violated a local rule. Judge Koh denied the sealing motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Apple, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-04700
- Laurel Beeler
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed an emergency request for an extension of time to file their reply supporting class certification. Their reply deadline was February 12, 2021. They argued that an exhibit in Apple’s opposition to class certification had an incorrect Bates number, the identifying number assigned to a document, and that Apple should file a corrected opposition. The plaintiffs also asked for one week to respond to that corrected opposition.
The plaintiffs filed an accompanying administrative motion to place a document under seal. Apple opposed the extension request, arguing that the plaintiffs were not harmed because Apple provided the correct Bates number less than three hours after being notified and later confirmed that no other cited documents had incorrect Bates numbers. Apple also argued that the plaintiffs violated Civil Local Rule 7-10 by failing to identify authority permitting an ex parte filing, meaning a request made without the usual advance notice and hearing process.
Court’s Reasoning
The court agreed with Apple that the plaintiffs had not shown prejudice. The court also agreed that the ex parte request violated Civil Local Rule 7-10.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ ex parte request for an extension of time, ECF No. 86. It denied as moot the accompanying administrative motion to file a document under seal, ECF No. 87. The order addressed the timing and filing requests, not the merits of the class-certification dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.