`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`In Re: All Auto Parts Cases
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`ALL AUTO PARTS CASES
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`2:12-MD-02311-MOB-MKM
`
`:::
`
`::
`
`::::
`
`
`
`CERTAIN SERVING PARTIES’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM NOT TO EXCEED 21 PAGES
`IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM
`NON-PARTY ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1255 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 21629
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(3), Automobile Dealer Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) submit this
`
`Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Reply Memorandum Not to Exceed 21 Pages in Support of
`
`their Motion To Compel Discovery From Non-Party Original Equipment Manufacturers.
`
`Plaintiffs seek leave to file a reply memorandum of up to 21 pages (in 12 point font).
`
`In support of their motion for leave to file a reply memorandum not to exceed 21 pages,
`
`Plaintiffs state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Local Rule 7.1(d)(3) provides for a 7-page limit for reply briefs.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum provides responses to arguments made in two
`
`separate briefs, by two sets of parties: Defendants in their Opposition Memorandum, and
`
`Specified Subpoenaed Entities (“SSEs”) in their Opposition Memorandum. The extra pages
`
`sought are necessary for Plaintiffs to fully and accurately respond to Defendants’ and SSEs’
`
`various arguments. Had Plaintiffs filed one brief in response to each brief asserting arguments in
`
`opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, Plaintiffs would be permitted a total of 14 pages. Thus, a
`
`request for 21 pages is not a significant increase.
`
`3.
`
`Both sets of parties filing opposing briefs made arguments not previously made to
`
`Plaintiffs and therefore not able to be addressed in Plaintiffs’ Motion.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs attempted to limit the pages of their memorandum without sacrificing
`
`clarity and/or its ability to address the factual and legal issues. Plaintiffs need 21 pages in order
`
`to cogently address Defendants’ and SSEs’ arguments.
`
`5.
`
`The Court and the Master have shown a willingness to extend page length when
`
`necessary to fully address the relevant issues.
`
`6.
`
`The Court has previously permitted Defendants to file reply briefs that were 35
`
`pages in length, in support of their motions to dismiss.
`
`2
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1255 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 21630
`
`7.
`
`Due to the extreme importance of the issues, as well as the relevance of the
`
`information requested in the Subpoena, which Plaintiffs will be able to issue only once in this
`
`litigation, 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, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Master enter an
`
`Order granting Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Reply Memorandum Not to
`
`Exceed 21 Pages.
`
`
`
`Date: March 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1255 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 21631
`
`David McMullan
`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
`dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Proposed
`Automobile Dealer Plaintiff Classes
`
`/s/ Gerard V. Mantese
`Gerard V. Mantese
`David Hansma
`Joshua Lushnat
`MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND
`WILLIAMSON, P.C.
`1221 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1255 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 21632
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 11, 2016 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
`
`
`
`5
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
