Brickman v. Facebook, Inc.
- William Orrick
- 3:16-cv-00751
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Brickman v. Facebook, Judge Orrick granted the parties’ request to extend briefing and reschedule a hearing on Brickman’s motion to amend.
The schedule for Facebook, Inc.’s opposition, Colin R. Brickman’s reply, and the hearing on Brickman’s motion for leave to amend the complaint was changed.
What happened
In Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., Colin R. Brickman asked to file a second amended complaint. Facebook’s opposition was originally due June 2, 2021, and Brickman’s reply was originally due June 9, 2021.
The parties agreed to change those dates because of the Memorial Day holiday period and to allow time to brief the effect of a recent Supreme Court decision. They asked to move Facebook’s opposition deadline to June 18, Brickman’s reply deadline to July 2, and the hearing from July 7 to July 21, 2021.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the stipulated request and adopted the new deadlines and hearing date. The order did not decide whether Brickman could amend the complaint.
The detailed version
- Brickman v. Facebook, Inc. · No. 3:16-cv-00751
- William Orrick
- May 20, 2021
Background
Colin R. Brickman moved for leave to file a second amended complaint on May 19, 2021. The motion was scheduled for briefing and a hearing. Facebook’s opposition was due June 2, 2021, Brickman’s reply was due June 9, 2021, and the hearing was scheduled for July 7, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
Requested schedule change
Facebook and Brickman stipulated to extend the schedule under Civil Local Rule 6-2. They stated that the Memorial Day holiday period and the need to brief the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid supported the extension.
Ruling
The court granted the stipulated request. It changed Facebook’s opposition deadline to June 18, 2021; set Brickman’s reply deadline for July 2, 2021; and rescheduled the hearing on Brickman’s motion for July 21, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The order addressed only the briefing schedule and hearing date, not the merits of the motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.