Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 132 Filed 11/13/24 Page 1 of 5
`
`(Additional counsel on following page)
`JESSICA R. PERRY (SBN 209321)
`jperry@orrick.com
`MELINDA S. RIECHERT (SBN 65504)
`mriechert@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Telephone:
`+1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 614 7401
`KATHRYN G. MANTOAN (SBN 239649)
`kmantoan@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 23-cv-4597-EMC
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION
`TO SHORTEN TIME RE: APPLE’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF
`ASHLEY GJOVIK’S FIFTH AMENDED
`COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP
`41(B)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEF.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME RE:
`FRCP 41(B) MOTION TO DISMISS
`[23-CV-4597-EMC]
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 132 Filed 11/13/24 Page 2 of 5
`
`KATE E. JUVINALL (SBN 315659)
`kjuvinall@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`631 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2-C
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone:
`+1 310 633 2800
`Facsimile:
`+1 310 633 2849
`RYAN D. BOOMS (SBN 329430)
`rbooms@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`Telephone:
`+1 202 339 8400
`Facsimile:
`+1 202 339 8500
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEF.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME RE:
`FRCP 41(B) MOTION TO DISMISS
`[23-CV-4597-EMC]
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 132 Filed 11/13/24 Page 3 of 5
`
`Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 6-3, Defendant Apple Inc. moves to shorten time (the “Motion to
`Shorten Time”) for the Court to hear Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Ashley Gjovik’s Fifth
`Amended Complaint (“5AC”) pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the
`“Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss”). The hearing on the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss is currently set
`for January 2, 2025. Apple respectfully requests that the Court advance the hearing on the Rule
`41(b) Motion to Dismiss to November 21, 2024 and stay Apple’s deadline to respond to the 5AC
`until the Court rules on the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, and to the extent that the Court denies
`the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, Apple requests that the Court permit Apple to file a response to
`the 5AC—potentially a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure—within 28 days of the Court’s order denying the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss.
`Alternatively, should the Court deny the Motion to Shorten Time, Apple requests that the
`Court stay Apple’s deadline to respond to the 5AC until the Court rules on the Rule 41(b) Motion
`to Dismiss, and to the extent that the Court denies the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, Apple requests
`that the Court permit Apple to file a response to the 5AC —potentially a motion to dismiss pursuant
`to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—within 28 days of the Court’s order
`denying the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss.
`The reasons for the requested shortening of time. Granting this request would promote
`judicial efficiency and fairness. In its Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, Apple argues that the 5AC
`should be dismissed with prejudice, leaving only the claims not dismissed in the Fourth Amended
`Complaint, because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders regarding the filing deadline
`and page limit for the 5AC. If the Court advances the hearing and stays Apple’s deadline to respond
`to the 5AC until the Court rules on the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, Apple’s need to respond to
`the 5AC may be obviated, sparing both parties—and the Court—the unnecessary time and
`resources involved in addressing the merits of the non-compliant complaint.
`Efforts Apple has made to obtain a stipulation to the time change. Counsel for Apple
`attempted to obtain a stipulation to the time change, but Plaintiff declined. See Declaration of
`Melinda S. Riechert in Support of Motion to Shorten Time (the “Riechert Decl.”) ¶2.
`The substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time. If
`DEF.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME RE:
`FRCP 41(B) MOTION TO DISMISS
`[23-CV-4597-EMC]
`
`- 1 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 132 Filed 11/13/24 Page 4 of 5
`
`the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss remains scheduled for January 2, 2025 (i.e., after Apple’s
`deadline to respond to the 5AC) and the deadline to respond to the 5AC is not stayed pending the
`Court’s ruling on the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, then Apple would suffer significant prejudice.
`Apple would need to invest time and resources to responding to a complaint that is fundamentally
`flawed, as Plaintiff has disregarded the Court’s orders on both the submission deadline and page
`limit for the 5AC.
`The nature of the underlying dispute that would be addressed in the Rule 41(b) Motion to
`Dismiss and the position each party has taken. In its Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, Apple argues
`that the 5AC should be dismissed with prejudice, leaving only the claims not dismissed in the
`Fourth Amended Complaint, for failure to comply with the Court’s October 1, 2024 order (Dkt.
`112) requiring Plaintiff to file a 5AC limited to 75 pages and its subsequent October 25, 2024 order
`(Dkt. 123) requiring Plaintiff to do so by November 5, 2024. Plaintiff intends to oppose the Rule
`41(b) Motion to Dismiss. See Riechert Decl. ¶2.
`Previous time modifications in the case, whether by stipulation or Court order. On October
`25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional week to file the 5AC.
`The effect the requested time modification would have on the schedule for the case. The
`requested time modification has the potential to result in an earlier resolution of this case. If the
`Court grants the Motion to Shorten Time and the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, Apple will file an
`answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint, but only with respect to those claims that Apple did not
`move to dismiss or that the Court permitted to proceed, within 28 days of the Court’s order granting
`the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss.
`Apple therefore respectfully requests that the Court advance the hearing on the Rule 41(b)
`Motion to Dismiss to November 21, 2024 and stay Apple’s deadline to respond to the 5AC until
`the Court rules on the Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 2 -
`
`DEF.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME RE:
`FRCP 41(B) MOTION TO DISMISS
`[23-CV-4597-EMC]
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 132 Filed 11/13/24 Page 5 of 5
`
`Dated: November 13, 2024
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`By: /s/ Melinda S. Riechert
`MELINDA S. RIECHERT
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 3 -
`
`DEF.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME RE:
`FRCP 41(B) MOTION TO DISMISS
`[23-CV-4597-EMC]
`
`