Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation — U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. Statement of Non-Opposition re 88 MOTION for Protective Order by… — Brooks v. Thomson R…

Court filing

Statement of Non-Opposition re 88 MOTION for Protective Order by… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 89)

Summary

Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation's Statement of Nonopposition to Non-Party File & ServeXpress, LLC's Motion for Limited Intervention and for Protective Order, Document 89, filed 05/09/22 in Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Under Local Rule 7-3(b), Thomson Reuters states that it does not oppose the motion filed on April 25, 2022 (Docket No. 88). The motion seeks an order prohibiting Thomson Reuters from disclosing the Service Agreement between West Publishing Corporation and File & ServeXpress, LLC. Thomson Reuters reserves the right to use the existence of that agreement in its defense, including on the Dormant Commerce Clause and class treatment.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Statement of Non-Opposition re 88 MOTION for Protective Order by… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 89).” Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 89. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2022-04-25-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-89-0-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-89-0/, SHA-256 40899a454b46f186702f894063ee70856b589d2d1e2b8c89b5b51bf6db9625bf.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 89      Filed 05/09/22     Page 1 of 2




      Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567                     Gabriella Gallego Bar No. 324226
 1    SFahringer@perkinscoie.com                            GGallego@perkinscoie.com
 2    Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice                       PERKINS COIE LLP
      NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com                              3150 Porter Drive
 3    Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice                            Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
      EEarl@perkinscoie.com                                 Telephone: 650.838.4300
 4    Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice                        Facsimile: 650.838.4350
      AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
 5
      PERKINS COIE LLP
 6    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
      Seattle, WA 98101-3099
 7    Telephone: 206.359.8000
      Facsimile: 206.359.9000
 8
      Attorneys for Defendant
 9    Thomson Reuters Corporation
10
                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
                                     SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13

14
      CAT BROOKS and RASHEED                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
15    SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf
      of all others similarly situated,               DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS
16
                                                      CORPORATION’S STATEMENT OF
                            Plaintiffs,               NONOPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY
17
                                                      FILE & SERVEXPRESS, LLC'S
             v.
18                                                    MOTION FOR LIMITED
      THOMSON REUTERS                                 INTERVENTION AND FOR
19    CORPORATION,                                    PROTECTIVE ORDER
20
                            Defendant.
21

22
            Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(b), Defendant Thomson Reuters submits this Statement of
23
     Nonopposition (“Statement”) to the Motion for Limited Intervention and for Protective Order (the
24
     “Motion for Limited Intervention”), filed on April 25, 2022 by Non-Party File & ServeXpress,
25
     LLC (“FSX”). See Docket No. 88.
26
            The Motion for Limited Intervention seeks an Order prohibiting Thomson Reuters from
27

28
      Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                -1-          THOMSON REUTERS’ STATEMENT OF
                                                                            NONOPPOSITION
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC            Document 89             Filed 05/09/22   Page 2 of 2




 1   disclosing and/or producing the Service Agreement between West Publishing Corporation and

 2   Non-Party File & ServeXpress, LLC (the “FSX Service Agreement”). While Thomson Reuters

 3   does not oppose the relief sought, Thomson Reuters reserves the right to use the existence of the

 4   FSX Service Agreement in its defense. For example (and without limitation), Thomson Reuters

 5   reserves the right to use the existence of the FSX Service Agreement to establish that the

 6   injunctive and monetary relief Plaintiffs seek in this case would violate the Dormant Commerce

 7   Clause 1 and would be an impermissible, extraterritorial application of California’s Unfair

 8   Competition Law, 2 and/or to help demonstrate that this case is not suitable for class treatment or

 9   that public injunctive relief is inappropriate.

10
            Dated: May 9, 2022                           PERKINS COIE LLP
11

12                                                           By: /s/ Susan D. Fahringer
13                                                               Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567
                                                                 SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
14
                                                             Attorneys for Defendant
15                                                           Thomson Reuters Corporation
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
            1 Applying California law to the collection, dissemination, or sale of data that is subject to

24   service agreements such as the FSX Service Agreement would burden interstate commerce and
     impermissibly regulate conduct occurring wholly outside of California. See Sam Francis Found.
25   v. Christies, Inc., 784 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Healy v. Beer Instit., 491 U.S. 324,
     336 (1989)).
26
            2 The UCL does not apply extraterritorially. See Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 254 P.3d 237,
27   247 (Cal. 2011).
28
      Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                       -2-           THOMSON REUTERS’ STATEMENT OF
                                                                                    NONOPPOSITION


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.89.0.pdf
Size
135,463 bytes
SHA-256
40899a454b46f186702f894063ee70856b589d2d1e2b8c89b5b51bf6db9625bf
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.89.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top