Judge Chhabria will be holding an important hearing over Zoom to consider arguments related to the plaintiffs’ request to get additional discovery time, now that the law firm of David Boies has taken the lead in the plaintiffs’ case. Meta opposes this request.
To understand why David Boies and lawyers from his firm were added late to the case, read our prior summary.
The hearing is today, Oct. 4, at 01:00 PM by videoconference only before Judge Vince Chhabria. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vc.
Plaintiffs’ motion is here.
Meta’s opposition is here.
One response to “Judge Chhabria to hold Zoom hearing re: plaintiffs’ request to get more discovery time in Kadrey v. Meta”
“One of the things that troubled me about your motion to extend the litigation deadlines was that it was clear to me, when we had our previous hearing, that these delays were the fault of the plaintiffs, and it’s clear from judge Hixson’s rulings that he is convinced also that the plaintiffs have been dragging their feet and they have not been pushing the case forward. But in your renewed motion for an extension, it seemed like all you were doing was blaming the defendants for delays, and.. I guess.. I found that really hard to swallow, and I find it really hard to entertain another request to extend the discovery deadlines when all your side seems to be doing is doubling down on this.. what I believe to be a false assertion.. that Meta is stonewalling you. I’m more convinced than ever, especially after reading judge Hixson’s rulings in the discovery rulings, that this is either entirely or almost entirely the fault of the plaintiffs’ legal team. So, I don’t really know what to do with that. I’ve got a newly constituted legal team in the Khadrey case that.. sort of.. generally, theoretically, I would have confidence in. And generally if they were able to articulate for me what more they need that they don’t have, and why, then I might be inclined to defer to. But instead of filing a motion where you sort of clearly articulated what more it is that you need for adjudication of the fair use issue, and sort of give me a roadmap for how we can get there, instead of saying “sorry we didn’t get it before, but here’s our plan for getting it now“, you’re just again accusing Meta of stonewalling.. and I think falsely accusing Meta of stonewalling. So I’m just left not knowing how to handle this renewed motion for an extension.”
But I think the judge will grant an extension but not because of what the new counsel for plaintiffs said but because there is new counsel and the case may have such large impact that judicial fairness would be better served by an extension.