In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name Likeness Licensing Litigation
Filing
79
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR ANTITRUST 78 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE. Responses due by 8/29/2012. Replies due by 9/2/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/24/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME
AND LIKENESS LICENSING
LITIGATION,
No. C 09-1967 CW
No. MC 11-80300 CW
No. MC 12-80020 CW
6
________________________________/
ORDER SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR ANTITRUST
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM
NON-DISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDERS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
On August 21, 2012, Antitrust Plaintiffs filed a motion
11
requesting relief from non-dispositive pretrial orders entered by
12
a Magistrate Judge on February 27, 2012 and August 7, 2012, in
13
which the Magistrate Judge issued sanctions against Antitrust
14
Plaintiffs related to their subpoenas requesting documents from
15
nonparties The Big Ten Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox
16
Broadcasting Company.1
17
18
19
1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Antitrust Plaintiffs previously timely filed a motion for
relief from the February 27, 2012 order. On March 19, 2012, the
Court set a briefing schedule on their first motion for relief.
In the February 27, 2012 order, the Magistrate Judge gave The Big
Ten Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company
leave to file a motion for sanctions against Antitrust Plaintiffs,
and they subsequently did so. After noting that, in their
opposition to the motions for sanctions, Antitrust Plaintiffs had
raised before the Magistrate Judge many of the same arguments that
they made in their motion for relief and sought the same relief,
the Court denied Antitrust Plaintiffs’ motion for relief without
prejudice to renewal after the Magistrate Judge had ruled on the
pending motions for sanctions. The Magistrate Judge did so in the
August 7, 2012 order, and Plaintiffs filed the instant motion
thereafter.
1
2
3
Pursuant to Local Rule 72-2, the Court hereby sets a briefing
schedule for this motion as follows:
Fox Broadcasting Company, The Big Ten Conference and The Big
4
Ten Network may each file an opposition to Antitrust Plaintiffs’
5
second motion for relief, of five pages or less within five days
6
of the date of this order.
7
of three pages or less, to each opposition within three days
8
thereafter.
9
Big Ten Conference and The Big Ten Network need not repeat the
Antitrust Plaintiffs may file a reply,
Antitrust Plaintiffs, Fox Broadcasting Company, The
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
same arguments made in their briefing related to Antitrust
11
Plaintiffs’ first motion for relief.
12
13
14
The Court will decide Antitrust Plaintiffs’ second motion for
relief on the papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
Dated: 8/24/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
