Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 488

Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:11976


MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO , LO S AN G E LE S , P ALO ALTO , SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O , D E N VE R , N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A WASH I N G T O N , D C

425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94105 2482 TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 FACSIMILE: 415 268 7522 WWW.MOFO.COM

T O K YO , L O N D O N , BRU SSE L S , BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

March 30, 2012

Writers Direct Contact 415.268.7011 JMcCabe@mofo.com

VIA ECF Filing The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford United States District Court 411 West Fourth Street, Courtroom 10D Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Liberi, et. al. v. Taitz, et al. (Case No. SACV 11-0485 AG (AJWx))

Dear Judge Guilford: This letter is submitted on behalf of Reed Elsevier Inc., LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group Inc., LexisNexis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis ChoicePoint, Inc., Lexis Nexis Seisint, Inc., d/b/a Accurint, and LexisNexis Group, Inc. (collectively, the LexisNexis Defendants) in reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the LexisNexis Defendants Application for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment (the Opposition). The Opposition papers filed this morning by Plaintiffs counsel contain a wide range of factually incorrect and incomplete assertions that are irrelevant to the LexisNexis Defendants application, and which need not be responded to here. However, there does appear to be one misunderstanding on the part of Plaintiffs counsel that merits a response because it relates to what the LexisNexis Defendants are seeking in their motion. In fact, it appears that Plaintiffs, even if unintentionally, agree with the LexisNexis Defendants and have consented to the LexisNexis Defendants request. The LexisNexis Defendants Application sought clarification from the court that their motion for summary judgment must be filed on or before April 4, 2012. This is the date thirty days from the close of discovery in this case, and the date established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) as the deadline. Notwithstanding their opposition to the LexisNexis Defendants request, April 4 is in fact precisely the due date demanded by the Plaintiffs in paragraph 43 of their Opposition papers. In reaching that date calculation, Plaintiffs counsel

sf-3127088

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 488

Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:11977

March 30, 2012 Page Two sets forth the express language of Rule 56(b). It thus appears that the parties are agreed that the due date for all summary judgment motions should be April 4, 2012.1 The LexisNexis Defendants therefore respectfully request that their Application should be granted, and all summary judgment motions should be filed on or before April 4, 2012. In addition, in light of the various stays still in effect in the case, the LexisNexis Defendants respectfully request that the Court hold a telephonic status conference with the parties at a time convenient to the Court. Respectfully submitted, s/ JIM MCCABE Jim McCabe cc: All Parties (Via Electronic Mail)

Plaintiffs may be taking this position because they have now realized that they filed their motion for summary judgment against the Sankey Defendants three days after the deadline suggested by the Court's clerk in our correspondence with her last week. The date suggested as the deadline was March 19, a date less than two weeks after the close of discovery. Without April 4, 2012, being confirmed as the deadline, Plaintiffs' pending summary judgment motion would be untimely. Plaintiffs have not yet sought from this court their own relief as to this deadline.

sf-3127088