Defendant eBay Inc. (“eBay”) moves this Court to certify its Memorandum and Order, issued on November 1, 2024, for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Dkt. 516).

A substantial ground for difference of opinion is satisfied when the issue presents “difficult and pivotal questions of law not settled by controlling authority.” Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 957 F. Supp.

For example, eBay has filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of ratification, a statutory prerequisite to punitive damages under California law.

Defendants claim that an interlocutory appeal will facilitate settlement with eBay, particularly if the ruling eliminates the possibility of punitive damages.

While the prospect of limiting damages might promote settlement, the timeline for an interlocutory appeal -- likely exceeding one year -- renders this argument unpersuasive.

Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors.

governmental agencies, regulatory authorities, or outside auditors who specifically request such documents from any Party or an entity described in Paragraph 8.2 (i) in order to fulfill their duties.

If the Non-Party timely seeks permission to file a motion for a protective order, the Responding Party shall not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the Court.

If approval by the Court is ultimately denied, withheld, or made conditional, no Party shall treat any material designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” produced prior to that time in a manner inconsistent with this Protective Order without giving the Producing Party sufficient advanced notice to allow for application to the Court for additional relief in a manner consistent with applicable Local Rules, Practices and Standing Orders.

Notwithstanding this provision, Outside Counsel of Record are entitled to retain an archival copies of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Disclosure or Discovery Material.

In this extraordinary and troubling case, eBay, an e-commerce company, conducted a campaign to silence Ina and David Steiner, a married couple living in Natick, Massachusetts, through harassment, stalking, and threats.

In response, as alleged, eBay’s top executives and employees made online threats, signed the Steiners up for over fifty unwanted email subscriptions, and sent disturbing packages to their home, including fly larvae, spiders, a bloody pig mask, and a funeral wreath.

Except where stated otherwise, the following is an abbreviated summary of the facts as described in the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 176).1 For over two decades, Ina and David Steiner have owned and operated EcommerceBytes, an online publication reporting on e-commerce companies such as eBay.

When parties cross-move for summary judgment, courts must evaluate each motion “separately, drawing inferences against each movant in turn.” Lawless v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 894 F.3d 9, 21 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting EEOC v. S.S. Clerks Union, Local 1066, 48 F.3d 594, 603 n.8 (1st Cir. 1995)).

From there, the defendants made plans to travel from California to Massachusetts, ordered threatening packages, subscribed the Steiners to unwanted emails, sent online threats, and, once law enforcement became involved, undertook efforts to cover up the investigation.

21cv11181-PBS The above-entitled action will be called for a Pretrial Conference on January 16, 2025 at 2:30 pm (in person) at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse Boston, MA Courtroom No.19-7th floor.

Unless excused by the Court, each party shall be represented at the pretrial conference by counsel who will conduct the trial.

By (7 days before FPTC), the parties shall file/serve opposition to motions in limine, any objections to witnesses or exhibits, and counter-designations of deposition testimony.

In the event that the case has been settled before the pretrial conference, counsel shall email and/or call the Deputy Clerk and promptly submit closing papers.

Failure to comply with any of the directions set forth above may result in judgment of dismissal or default, or the imposition of other sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court.

The Court adopts the following modified Scheduling Order: Deadline Description Deadline Fact Discovery eBay to provide Document Production to Plaintiffs’ new counsel.

Plaintiffs’ production of all records they have agreed to produce in their written responses dated April 23, 2024 and in their interrogatory responses dated May 1, 2024.

Defendants (other than eBay) to provide document production to Plaintiffs.

Requests for Admission Fact witness depositions Completion of fact discovery 5/17/24 6/7/24 6/7/24 8/23/24 9/27/24 9/27/24 Mediation Parties commit to participate in a mediation (currently scheduled for June 17, 2024) Expert Discovery Completion of IMEs Plaintiffs’ designation of experts and information contemplated by Rule 26(a)(2) Defendants’ designation of experts and information contemplated by Rule 26(a)(2) Rebuttal expert reports Completion of expert depositions and discovery Daubert motions Dispositive Motions Dispositive motions (motions for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings) Oppositions to dispositive motions Reply memoranda Sur-reply memoranda Oral argument on motions for summary judgment

Patti B. Saris United States District Judge