2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1145 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 16201
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM
`
`
`
`:
`:
`
` :::::::
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`In Re: All Auto Parts Cases
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`All Dealership Actions
`
`
`
`
`DEALERHIP PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE A MEMORANDUM NOT TO EXCEED 49 PAGES
`IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM
`
`
`
`:
`:
`
` :::::::
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`In Re: All Auto Parts Cases
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`All Dealership Actions
`
`
`
`
`DEALERHIP PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE A MEMORANDUM NOT TO EXCEED 49 PAGES
`IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1145 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 16202
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), Dealership Plaintiffs submit this Ex Parte Motion for
`
`Leave to File a Memorandum Not to Exceed 49 Pages in Support of Their Motion for Protective
`
`Order as to Dealership Plaintiffs’ Depositions. The Dealership Plaintiffs seek leave to file a
`
`memorandum of up to 49 pages (in 12 point font).
`
`In support of their motion for leave to file a memorandum not to exceed 49 pages, the
`
`Dealership Plaintiffs state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Local Rule 7.1(d)(3) provides for a 25-page limit in the opening brief. Judge
`
`Battani’s Practice Guidelines provide for a 20-page limit when 12 point font is used.
`
`2.
`
`Dealership Plaintiffs’ Memorandum provides detailed legal and factual analysis in
`
`support of their motion seeking a protective order imposing reasonable limitations on depositions
`
`noticed by Defendants and seeking protection from Defendants’ Interrogatories. Because there
`
`are a significant number of topics noticed by Defendants, including 14 main topics and over 20
`
`sub-parts of the main topics, extra pages sought are necessary for Dealership Plaintiffs to fully
`
`and accurately brief the Master on the numerous issues in this Motion.
`
`3.
`
`Dealership Plaintiffs attempted to limit the pages of their Memorandum of Law
`
`without sacrificing clarity and/or its ability to address the factual and legal issue supporting their
`
`motion. However, due to the number of factual and legal issues needing to be addressed,
`
`Dealership Plaintiffs need 49 pages in order to cogently and completely place the relevant factual
`
`and legal issues before this Court.
`
`4.
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, addressing certain issues before
`
`the Master for the first time in this Litigation, is shorter than Defendants’ 85-page long Motions
`
`to Dismiss, briefing issues that have been briefed before in this Litigation.
`
`2
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1145 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 16203
`
`5.
`
`The Court the Master have shown a willingness to extend page length when
`
`necessary to fully address the relevant issues.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs are willing to agree to a commensurate page extension for Defendants.
`
`Defendants themselves have sought and obtained consensus from Dealership
`
`Plaintiffs to file 85-page motions to dismiss in this MDL. See, e.g., Modified Stipulation And
`
`Order Regarding Motions To Dismiss, 2:13-cv-00902, ECF No. 54; Stipulation And Order
`
`Regarding Motions To Dismiss, 2:13-cv-01702, ECF No. 37.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dealership Plaintiffs have sought but have not obtained consent for their request.
`
`Courts frequently permit parties to exceed page limitations where doing so does
`
`not prejudice the opposing party. See, e.g., Ashland, Inc. v. Windward Petroleum, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 04-554-JBC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49709, at * 12 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2006).
`
`Allowing Dealership Plaintiffs to exceed the page limitation by the excess pages sought would
`
`not prejudice Defendants. Dealership Plaintiffs are agreeable to a similar extension for
`
`Defendants’ responsive brief. On the other hand, Dealership Plaintiffs would be unfairly
`
`prejudiced if they were unable to fully brief the Court on the numerous factual and legal issues
`
`involved in this important motion.
`
`10.
`
`Due to the extreme importance of the issues, as well as the rights and burdens at
`
`play, Plaintiffs believe that it is imperative that they be permitted to fully set forth their position
`
`to the Master.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Dealership Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Master
`
`enter an Order granting Dealership Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum
`
`Not to Exceed 49 Pages.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1145 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 16204
`
`Date: Novemver 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jonathan W. Cuneo
`Jonathan W. Cuneo
`Joel Davidow
`Victoria Romanenko
`Yifei Li
`CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
`507 C Street, N.E.
`Washington, DC 20002
`Telephone: (202) 789-3960
`Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
`jonc@cuneolaw.com
`joel@cuneolaw.com
`vicky@cuneolaw.com
`evelyn@cuneolaw.com
`
`s/ Shawn M. Raiter
`Shawn M. Raiter
`LARSON • KING, LLP
`2800 Wells Fargo Place
`30 East Seventh Street
`St. Paul, MN 55101
`Telephone: (651) 312-6500
`Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
`sraiter@larsonking.com
`
`/s/ Don Barrett
`Don Barrett
`David McMullan
`Brian Herrington
`BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
`P.O. Box 927
`404 Court Square
`Lexington, MS 39095
`Telephone: (662) 834-2488
`Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
`dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
`bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
`dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Proposed
`Automobile Dealer Plaintiff Classes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1145 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 16205
`
`
`
`/s/ Gerard V. Mantese
`Gerard V. Mantese
`David Hansma
`Joshua Lushnat
`MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND
`WILLIAMSON, P.C.
`1361 E. Big Beaver Road
`Troy, MI 48083
`Phone: (248) 457-9200 ext. 203
`Fax: (248) 457-9201
`gmantese@manteselaw.com
`dhansma@manteselaw.com
`jlushnat@manteselaw.com
`
`Interim Liaison Counsel for the Proposed
`Automobile Dealer Plaintiff Class
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1145 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 16206
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 24, 2015 I electronically filed the foregoing papers with the
`
`Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send electronic notices of same to all counsel of
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_/s/ Jonathan W. Cuneo
`Jonathan W. Cuneo
`Joel Davidow
`Daniel Cohen
`Victoria Romanenko
`Evelyn Li
`Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
`507 C Street, N.E.
`Washington, DC 20002
`Telephone: (202) 789-3960
`jonc@cuneolaw.com
`joel@cuneolaw.com
`danielc@cuneolaw.com
`vicky@cuneolaw.com
`evelyn@cuneolaw.com
`
`
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
