Preview
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
COLLIE F. JAMES, IV, State Bar No. 192318
2 collie.james@morganlewis.com
ADAM D. TEITCHER, State Bar No. 313980 ELECTRONICALLY
3 adam.teitcher@morganlewis.com FILED
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Superior Court of California,
4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 County of San Francisco
Tel: +1.714.830.0600 06/07/2022
5 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Clerk of the Court
BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Attorneys for Defendant
6 Deputy Clerk
HOMEADVISOR, INC., and ANGI
HOMESERVICES, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. CGC-18-565008
CALIFORNIA,
12 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
Plaintiff, CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND
13 v. DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT
TO STIPULATION
HOMEADVISOR, INC. a Delaware AND ATTACHED DECLARATION OF
14 corporation; ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC., a COLLIE F. JAMES, IV
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
15 100, inclusive, Action Filed: March 14, 2018
Defendants. Trial Date: August 1, 2022
16
Hearing Date: June 9, 2022
17 Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 206
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the “People”), generally
2 appearing through their attorney Alexandra Grayner, Assistant District Attorney of the City and
3 County of San Francisco; and Defendants HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI
4 HOMESERVICES, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”; and, with the People, the “Parties”),
5 generally appearing through their attorneys Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, request that the
6 Court enter the stipulated proposed order continuing the trial date for the above-referenced
7 matter, which is currently set on August 1, 2022, to January 30, 2023, or as soon thereafter as
8 convenient for the Court. The Parties have previously requested to continue trial in this matter
9 one time. The concurrently filed stipulation memorializes the Parties’ agreement. In that
10 stipulation, the Parties also agree that the request for continuance may be made during the
11 Court’s ex parte calendar, pursuant to Local Rule 6.0(b). Defendants notified the People’s
12 counsel of the date and time of the ex parte hearing on June 7, 2022, and confirmed that the
13 People will not oppose.
14 Good cause exists to grant a continuance. First, the Parties would like the opportunity to
15 engage in settlement discussions in this matter but expect those discussions could take place over
16 an extended period given the current posture of the case and the Parties’ respective positions.
17 Second, the lead attorney for the People and lead counsel for Defendants have trials
18 preventing them from adequately preparing for trial in this matter. Defense counsel has been lead
19 counsel to a defendant in a large ongoing trial of great public interest. That trial, which opened
20 April 25, 2022, is expected to continue through at least July 2022. The lead attorney for the
21 People is the sole assigned Assistant District Attorney in a criminal case pending in San Francisco
22 Superior Court, which is likely to go to trial in late June 2022 and is estimated to take five weeks,
23 which means that the trial would end right around August 1, 2022. The exact trial date will be set
24 at a pretrial conference on June 3, 2022.
25 Third, the Parties have been diligently completing depositions, some of which have been
26 delayed as the People requested the production of additional documents from Defendants
27 covering additional custodians. The additional documents have been burdensome to collect and
28 include a large amount of documents for review. The Parties do not believe that the Defendants’
2
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 supplemental production of documents from additional custodians will be complete in time for
2 the People to review those documents and use them in the depositions of certain out-of-state
3 witnesses prior to trial. The additional documents requested are non-cumulative, are necessary
4 due to the complexities of the case, and are intended to obviate the need for additional depositions
5 to the extent possible.
6 Finally, the Parties are seeking a six-month continuance because the lead attorney for the
7 People has another high-profile trial commencing on September 21, 2022 that will last for several
8 weeks and may go into the holidays.
9 Defendants and the People have stipulated to a continuance of the trial date to January 30,
10 2023, and of all related deadlines, and also to extend the percipient and expert discovery cutoffs
11 to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, respectively.
12 As such, the Parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order granting a
13 continuance of the trial date until January 30, 2023, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the
14 Court.
15
16 DATED: June 7, 2022 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
17
By: /s/ Collie F. James, IV
18 Collie F. James, IV
Adam D. Teitcher
19
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
20 HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI
HOMESERVICES, INC.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 This is a civil law enforcement action brought by the People pursuant to Business &
4 Professions code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. The gravamen of the People’s action is
5 that HomeAdvisor made false and misleading representations to consumers regarding its
6 background-check program consistently over a four-year period in television and radio broadcasts
7 as well as in streaming media. (James Decl. ¶ 2.)
8 The People and Defendants conducted initial discovery in this matter throughout 2018,
9 while litigating the People’s request for preliminary injunction. Following the Court’s order of a
10 preliminary injunction, Defendants appealed. The Parties briefed that appeal in 2019 and argued
11 it in April 2020. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction in May 2020. (Id. ¶ 3.) The Parties
12 made efforts to settle the case at that point; those efforts included informal requests for
13 information by the People, to which Defendants responded in late 2020. Formal fact discovery
14 was delayed in 2020, in part owing to the Parties’ settlement efforts and in part owing to the
15 disruption of the pandemic. (Id. ¶ 4.) In early 2021, the Parties began working toward settlement
16 earnestly but decided that those efforts would be most productive if focused on negotiating a
17 smaller case brought by the People against a sister corporation of Defendant. A stipulated
18 judgment was filed in that case on July 12, 2021. (Id. ¶ 5.)
19 The Parties would like the opportunity to engage in settlement discussions in this matter
20 but expect those discussions could take place over an extended period given the current posture of
21 the case and the Parties’ respective positions.
22 Additionally, the lead attorney for the People and lead counsel for Defendants have trials
23 preventing them from adequately preparing for trial set on August 1, 2022. Defense counsel has
24 been lead counsel to a defendant in a large ongoing trial of great public interest. (Id. ¶ 6.) That
25 trial, which opened April 25, 2022, is expected to continue through at least July 2022. (Id.) The
26 lead attorney for the People is the sole assigned Assistant District Attorney in a criminal case
27 pending in San Francisco Superior Court, which is likely to go to trial in late June 2022 and is
28 estimated to take five weeks, which means that the trial would end right around August 1, 2022.
4
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 (Id. ¶ 7.) The exact trial date will be set at a pretrial conference on June 3, 2022. (Id.) In
2 addition, the lead attorney for the People is also one of two Assistant District Attorneys assigned
3 to the accusation (impeachment) proceeding against Santa Clara County’s Sheriff Laurie Smith,
4 which accusation trial is scheduled to commence on September 21, 2022 and last for at least six
5 weeks. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office was specially assigned to this case due to
6 conflicts of interest in Santa Clara County. (Id. ¶ 8.)
7 Finally, the Parties have been diligently completing depositions and the People has
8 requested additional documents from Defendants covering additional custodians. (Id. ¶ 9.) The
9 additional productions have been burdensome to collect and contain a large amount of documents
10 for review. (Id.) Because of the additional documents to be produced, the People do not believe
11 that the requested production will be received in sufficient time for the People to adequately
12 prepare for trial. (Id.) The additional documents requested are non-cumulative, are necessary due
13 to the complexities of the case, and are intended to obviate the need for additional depositions to
14 the extent possible. (Id.)
15 In light of these issues, the Parties have agreed to stipulate to a six-month continuance of
16 the trial date, and a concomitant extension of all pre-trial deadlines, as well as an extension of the
17 percipient and expert discovery cutoffs to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date,
18 respectively. (Id. ¶ 10.) This Court has previously ordered one continuance of the trial in this
19 case, from September 13, 2021 to August 1, 2022. (Id. ¶ 11.) A continuance at this point is
20 necessary for the Parties to be able to productively discuss whether there might be a path to
21 resolution, and also for the Parties to be able to be prepared for trial. (Id.)
22 II. ARGUMENT
23 A Court may grant a request for a continuance of a trial date on an affirmative showing of
24 good cause. (Cal. Rule of Court “CRC” 3.1332(a)). Circumstances that indicate good cause
25 include a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material
26 evidence despite diligent efforts (CRC 3.1332(c)(6)). A Court may also consider “[w]hether all
27 parties have stipulated to a continuance” and “[a]ny other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair
28 determination of the motion.” (CRC 3.1332(d)(9), (11)).
5
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 In this case, the Parties’ counsel’s lead roles in a separate trials that are expected to
2 continue through at July and August, has made it difficult for either side to effectively prepare for
3 trial. Moreover, the additional documents requested by the People will require a great deal of
4 effort to collect and review. These difficulties are not due to neglect but are to some extent a
5 product of the Parties’ good-faith efforts and cooperative engagement. At this time, the Parties
6 agree that a continuance will facilitate efficient and productive settlement negotiations. At the
7 same time, the Parties are also optimistic that—if this case were not to settle—a six-month
8 extension of the trial date would provide ample time for the Parties to complete outstanding fact
9 and expert discovery, and for both Parties to be prepared for trial.
10 Because the Parties believe that a continuance is necessary for them to be able to
11 productively discuss resolution and be prepared for any trial, the Parties have agreed to stipulate
12 to a six-month continuance of the trial date, and a concomitant extension of all pre-trial deadlines,
13 as well as an extension of the percipient and expert discovery cutoffs to 30 days and 15 days
14 before the new trial date, respectively. (James Decl. ¶ 10.)
15 CONCLUSION
16 Good cause exists to grant a continuance of the trial in order to afford the Parties a
17 sufficient opportunity to try to resolve this dispute through settlement and for the Parties to
18 complete fact and expert discovery if resolution is not possible. For these reasons, the Parties
19 respectfully request that the Court grant the Parties’ stipulated request for an order continuing the
20 trial to January 30, 2023, extend all pre-trial deadlines accordingly, and extend the percipient and
21 expert discovery cutoff dates to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, respectively.
22
23 DATED: June 7, 2022 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
24
By: /s/ Collie F. James, IV
25 Collie F. James, IV
Adam D. Teitcher
26
Attorneys For Defendants
27 HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI
HOMESERVICES, INC.
28
6
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 DECLARATION OF COLLIE F. JAMES, IV
2 I, Collie F. James, IV, declare,
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and a partner with
4 the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants
5 HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC. (“Defendants”). I am submitting
6 this Declaration in support of Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date and
7 Discovery Deadlines Pursuant to Stipulation. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
8 herein. If called and sworn as a witness, I could testify competently as to the veracity of the
9 following facts.
10 2. This is a civil law enforcement action brought by the People pursuant to Business
11 & Professions code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. The gravamen of the People’s action
12 is that HomeAdvisor has made false and misleading representations to consumers regarding its
13 background-check program consistently over a four-year period in television and radio broadcasts
14 as well as in streaming media.
15 3. The People and Defendants conducted initial discovery in this matter throughout
16 2018, while litigating the People’s request for preliminary injunction. Following the Court’s
17 order of a preliminary injunction, Defendants appealed. The Parties briefed that appeal in 2019
18 and argued it in April 2020. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction in May 2020.
19 4. The Parties made efforts to settle the case at that point; those efforts included
20 informal requests for information by the People, to which Defendants responded in late 2020.
21 Formal fact discovery was delayed in 2020, in part owing to the Parties’ settlement efforts and in
22 part owing to the disruption of the pandemic.
23 5. In early 2021, the Parties began working toward settlement earnestly but decided
24 that those efforts would be most productive if focused on negotiating a smaller case brought by
25 the People against a sister corporation of Defendant. A stipulated judgment was filed in that case
26 on July 12, 2021. The Parties would like the opportunity to engage in settlement discussions in
27 this matter but expect those discussions could take place over an extended period given the
28 current posture of the case and the Parties’ respective positions.
7
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 6. The lead attorney for the People and lead counsel for Defendants have trials
2 preventing them from adequately preparing for trial in this matter. Defense counsel has been lead
3 counsel to a defendant in a large ongoing trial of great public interest. That trial, which opened
4 April 25, 2022, is expected to continue through at least July 2022.
5 7. On information and belief, the lead attorney for the People is the sole assigned
6 Assistant District Attorney in a criminal case pending in San Francisco Superior Court, which is
7 likely to go to trial in late June 2022 and is estimated to take five weeks, which means that the
8 trial would end right around August 1, 2022, the start date for the HomeAdvisor trial, and would
9 also take place almost entirely over the expert discovery period. The case has been assigned to a
10 specific trial department (Department 26, Judge Rita Lin), and there is a pretrial conference on
11 June 3, 2022, at which the trial date will be set. The defendant in this criminal trial has not
12 waived his speedy trial rights, and this trial has already been delayed due to the Covid-19
13 pandemic.
14 8. On information and belief, the lead attorney for the People is also one of two
15 Assistant District Attorneys assigned to the accusation proceeding against Santa Clara County’s
16 Sheriff Laurie Smith, which accusation trial is scheduled to commence on September 21, 2022
17 and last for at least six weeks. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office was specially
18 assigned to this case due to conflicts of interest in Santa Clara County.
19 9. The Parties have been diligently completing depositions and the People has
20 requested additional documents from Defendants covering additional custodians. The additional
21 productions have been burdensome to collect and contain a large amount of documents for
22 review. Because of the additional documents to be produced, the People do not believe that the
23 requested production will be received in sufficient time for the People to adequately prepare for
24 trial. The additional documents requested are non-cumulative, are necessary due to the
25 complexities of the case, and are intended to obviate the need for additional depositions to the
26 extent possible. This remaining fact discovery, as well as expert discovery, are crucial in a case
27 involving representations made frequently and consistently over a four-year period in television
28 and radio broadcasts as well as in streaming media.
8
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
1 10. In light of these issues, the Parties have agreed to stipulate to a six-month
2 continuance of the trial date, from August 1, 2022 to January 30, 2023, and a concomitant
3 extension of all pre-trial deadlines, as well as an extension of the percipient and expert discovery
4 cutoffs to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, respectively.
5 11. This Court has previously ordered one continuance of the trial in this case, from
6 September 13, 2022 to August 1, 2022. A continuance at this point is necessary for the Parties to
7 be able to productively discuss whether there might be a path to resolution, and also for the
8 Parties to be able to be prepared for trial.
9 12. On June 7, 2022, my team emailed Alexandra Grayer to let her know the date and
10 time of the hearing, and confirmed that Ms. Grayner will not oppose.
11
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the
13 foregoing is true and correct.
14 Executed this 7th day of June 2022 at San Francisco, California.
15 /s/ Collie F. James, IV
Collie F. James, IV
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
Preview
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP COLLIE F. JAMES, IV, State Bar No. 192318 2 collie.james@morganlewis.com ADAM D. TEITCHER, State Bar No. 313980 ELECTRONICALLY 3 adam.teitcher@morganlewis.com FILED 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Superior Court of California, 4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 County of San Francisco Tel: +1.714.830.0600 06/07/2022 5 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Attorneys for Defendant 6 Deputy Clerk HOMEADVISOR, INC., and ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. CGC-18-565008 CALIFORNIA, 12 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO Plaintiff, CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND 13 v. DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION HOMEADVISOR, INC. a Delaware AND ATTACHED DECLARATION OF 14 corporation; ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC., a COLLIE F. JAMES, IV Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 15 100, inclusive, Action Filed: March 14, 2018 Defendants. Trial Date: August 1, 2022 16 Hearing Date: June 9, 2022 17 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 206 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the “People”), generally 2 appearing through their attorney Alexandra Grayner, Assistant District Attorney of the City and 3 County of San Francisco; and Defendants HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI 4 HOMESERVICES, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”; and, with the People, the “Parties”), 5 generally appearing through their attorneys Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, request that the 6 Court enter the stipulated proposed order continuing the trial date for the above-referenced 7 matter, which is currently set on August 1, 2022, to January 30, 2023, or as soon thereafter as 8 convenient for the Court. The Parties have previously requested to continue trial in this matter 9 one time. The concurrently filed stipulation memorializes the Parties’ agreement. In that 10 stipulation, the Parties also agree that the request for continuance may be made during the 11 Court’s ex parte calendar, pursuant to Local Rule 6.0(b). Defendants notified the People’s 12 counsel of the date and time of the ex parte hearing on June 7, 2022, and confirmed that the 13 People will not oppose. 14 Good cause exists to grant a continuance. First, the Parties would like the opportunity to 15 engage in settlement discussions in this matter but expect those discussions could take place over 16 an extended period given the current posture of the case and the Parties’ respective positions. 17 Second, the lead attorney for the People and lead counsel for Defendants have trials 18 preventing them from adequately preparing for trial in this matter. Defense counsel has been lead 19 counsel to a defendant in a large ongoing trial of great public interest. That trial, which opened 20 April 25, 2022, is expected to continue through at least July 2022. The lead attorney for the 21 People is the sole assigned Assistant District Attorney in a criminal case pending in San Francisco 22 Superior Court, which is likely to go to trial in late June 2022 and is estimated to take five weeks, 23 which means that the trial would end right around August 1, 2022. The exact trial date will be set 24 at a pretrial conference on June 3, 2022. 25 Third, the Parties have been diligently completing depositions, some of which have been 26 delayed as the People requested the production of additional documents from Defendants 27 covering additional custodians. The additional documents have been burdensome to collect and 28 include a large amount of documents for review. The Parties do not believe that the Defendants’ 2 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 supplemental production of documents from additional custodians will be complete in time for 2 the People to review those documents and use them in the depositions of certain out-of-state 3 witnesses prior to trial. The additional documents requested are non-cumulative, are necessary 4 due to the complexities of the case, and are intended to obviate the need for additional depositions 5 to the extent possible. 6 Finally, the Parties are seeking a six-month continuance because the lead attorney for the 7 People has another high-profile trial commencing on September 21, 2022 that will last for several 8 weeks and may go into the holidays. 9 Defendants and the People have stipulated to a continuance of the trial date to January 30, 10 2023, and of all related deadlines, and also to extend the percipient and expert discovery cutoffs 11 to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, respectively. 12 As such, the Parties respectfully request that the Court issue an order granting a 13 continuance of the trial date until January 30, 2023, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the 14 Court. 15 16 DATED: June 7, 2022 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 17 By: /s/ Collie F. James, IV 18 Collie F. James, IV Adam D. Teitcher 19 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 20 HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 This is a civil law enforcement action brought by the People pursuant to Business & 4 Professions code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. The gravamen of the People’s action is 5 that HomeAdvisor made false and misleading representations to consumers regarding its 6 background-check program consistently over a four-year period in television and radio broadcasts 7 as well as in streaming media. (James Decl. ¶ 2.) 8 The People and Defendants conducted initial discovery in this matter throughout 2018, 9 while litigating the People’s request for preliminary injunction. Following the Court’s order of a 10 preliminary injunction, Defendants appealed. The Parties briefed that appeal in 2019 and argued 11 it in April 2020. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction in May 2020. (Id. ¶ 3.) The Parties 12 made efforts to settle the case at that point; those efforts included informal requests for 13 information by the People, to which Defendants responded in late 2020. Formal fact discovery 14 was delayed in 2020, in part owing to the Parties’ settlement efforts and in part owing to the 15 disruption of the pandemic. (Id. ¶ 4.) In early 2021, the Parties began working toward settlement 16 earnestly but decided that those efforts would be most productive if focused on negotiating a 17 smaller case brought by the People against a sister corporation of Defendant. A stipulated 18 judgment was filed in that case on July 12, 2021. (Id. ¶ 5.) 19 The Parties would like the opportunity to engage in settlement discussions in this matter 20 but expect those discussions could take place over an extended period given the current posture of 21 the case and the Parties’ respective positions. 22 Additionally, the lead attorney for the People and lead counsel for Defendants have trials 23 preventing them from adequately preparing for trial set on August 1, 2022. Defense counsel has 24 been lead counsel to a defendant in a large ongoing trial of great public interest. (Id. ¶ 6.) That 25 trial, which opened April 25, 2022, is expected to continue through at least July 2022. (Id.) The 26 lead attorney for the People is the sole assigned Assistant District Attorney in a criminal case 27 pending in San Francisco Superior Court, which is likely to go to trial in late June 2022 and is 28 estimated to take five weeks, which means that the trial would end right around August 1, 2022. 4 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 (Id. ¶ 7.) The exact trial date will be set at a pretrial conference on June 3, 2022. (Id.) In 2 addition, the lead attorney for the People is also one of two Assistant District Attorneys assigned 3 to the accusation (impeachment) proceeding against Santa Clara County’s Sheriff Laurie Smith, 4 which accusation trial is scheduled to commence on September 21, 2022 and last for at least six 5 weeks. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office was specially assigned to this case due to 6 conflicts of interest in Santa Clara County. (Id. ¶ 8.) 7 Finally, the Parties have been diligently completing depositions and the People has 8 requested additional documents from Defendants covering additional custodians. (Id. ¶ 9.) The 9 additional productions have been burdensome to collect and contain a large amount of documents 10 for review. (Id.) Because of the additional documents to be produced, the People do not believe 11 that the requested production will be received in sufficient time for the People to adequately 12 prepare for trial. (Id.) The additional documents requested are non-cumulative, are necessary due 13 to the complexities of the case, and are intended to obviate the need for additional depositions to 14 the extent possible. (Id.) 15 In light of these issues, the Parties have agreed to stipulate to a six-month continuance of 16 the trial date, and a concomitant extension of all pre-trial deadlines, as well as an extension of the 17 percipient and expert discovery cutoffs to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, 18 respectively. (Id. ¶ 10.) This Court has previously ordered one continuance of the trial in this 19 case, from September 13, 2021 to August 1, 2022. (Id. ¶ 11.) A continuance at this point is 20 necessary for the Parties to be able to productively discuss whether there might be a path to 21 resolution, and also for the Parties to be able to be prepared for trial. (Id.) 22 II. ARGUMENT 23 A Court may grant a request for a continuance of a trial date on an affirmative showing of 24 good cause. (Cal. Rule of Court “CRC” 3.1332(a)). Circumstances that indicate good cause 25 include a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material 26 evidence despite diligent efforts (CRC 3.1332(c)(6)). A Court may also consider “[w]hether all 27 parties have stipulated to a continuance” and “[a]ny other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair 28 determination of the motion.” (CRC 3.1332(d)(9), (11)). 5 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 In this case, the Parties’ counsel’s lead roles in a separate trials that are expected to 2 continue through at July and August, has made it difficult for either side to effectively prepare for 3 trial. Moreover, the additional documents requested by the People will require a great deal of 4 effort to collect and review. These difficulties are not due to neglect but are to some extent a 5 product of the Parties’ good-faith efforts and cooperative engagement. At this time, the Parties 6 agree that a continuance will facilitate efficient and productive settlement negotiations. At the 7 same time, the Parties are also optimistic that—if this case were not to settle—a six-month 8 extension of the trial date would provide ample time for the Parties to complete outstanding fact 9 and expert discovery, and for both Parties to be prepared for trial. 10 Because the Parties believe that a continuance is necessary for them to be able to 11 productively discuss resolution and be prepared for any trial, the Parties have agreed to stipulate 12 to a six-month continuance of the trial date, and a concomitant extension of all pre-trial deadlines, 13 as well as an extension of the percipient and expert discovery cutoffs to 30 days and 15 days 14 before the new trial date, respectively. (James Decl. ¶ 10.) 15 CONCLUSION 16 Good cause exists to grant a continuance of the trial in order to afford the Parties a 17 sufficient opportunity to try to resolve this dispute through settlement and for the Parties to 18 complete fact and expert discovery if resolution is not possible. For these reasons, the Parties 19 respectfully request that the Court grant the Parties’ stipulated request for an order continuing the 20 trial to January 30, 2023, extend all pre-trial deadlines accordingly, and extend the percipient and 21 expert discovery cutoff dates to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, respectively. 22 23 DATED: June 7, 2022 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 24 By: /s/ Collie F. James, IV 25 Collie F. James, IV Adam D. Teitcher 26 Attorneys For Defendants 27 HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC. 28 6 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 DECLARATION OF COLLIE F. JAMES, IV 2 I, Collie F. James, IV, declare, 3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and a partner with 4 the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants 5 HOMEADVISOR, INC. and ANGI HOMESERVICES, INC. (“Defendants”). I am submitting 6 this Declaration in support of Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date and 7 Discovery Deadlines Pursuant to Stipulation. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated 8 herein. If called and sworn as a witness, I could testify competently as to the veracity of the 9 following facts. 10 2. This is a civil law enforcement action brought by the People pursuant to Business 11 & Professions code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. The gravamen of the People’s action 12 is that HomeAdvisor has made false and misleading representations to consumers regarding its 13 background-check program consistently over a four-year period in television and radio broadcasts 14 as well as in streaming media. 15 3. The People and Defendants conducted initial discovery in this matter throughout 16 2018, while litigating the People’s request for preliminary injunction. Following the Court’s 17 order of a preliminary injunction, Defendants appealed. The Parties briefed that appeal in 2019 18 and argued it in April 2020. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction in May 2020. 19 4. The Parties made efforts to settle the case at that point; those efforts included 20 informal requests for information by the People, to which Defendants responded in late 2020. 21 Formal fact discovery was delayed in 2020, in part owing to the Parties’ settlement efforts and in 22 part owing to the disruption of the pandemic. 23 5. In early 2021, the Parties began working toward settlement earnestly but decided 24 that those efforts would be most productive if focused on negotiating a smaller case brought by 25 the People against a sister corporation of Defendant. A stipulated judgment was filed in that case 26 on July 12, 2021. The Parties would like the opportunity to engage in settlement discussions in 27 this matter but expect those discussions could take place over an extended period given the 28 current posture of the case and the Parties’ respective positions. 7 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 6. The lead attorney for the People and lead counsel for Defendants have trials 2 preventing them from adequately preparing for trial in this matter. Defense counsel has been lead 3 counsel to a defendant in a large ongoing trial of great public interest. That trial, which opened 4 April 25, 2022, is expected to continue through at least July 2022. 5 7. On information and belief, the lead attorney for the People is the sole assigned 6 Assistant District Attorney in a criminal case pending in San Francisco Superior Court, which is 7 likely to go to trial in late June 2022 and is estimated to take five weeks, which means that the 8 trial would end right around August 1, 2022, the start date for the HomeAdvisor trial, and would 9 also take place almost entirely over the expert discovery period. The case has been assigned to a 10 specific trial department (Department 26, Judge Rita Lin), and there is a pretrial conference on 11 June 3, 2022, at which the trial date will be set. The defendant in this criminal trial has not 12 waived his speedy trial rights, and this trial has already been delayed due to the Covid-19 13 pandemic. 14 8. On information and belief, the lead attorney for the People is also one of two 15 Assistant District Attorneys assigned to the accusation proceeding against Santa Clara County’s 16 Sheriff Laurie Smith, which accusation trial is scheduled to commence on September 21, 2022 17 and last for at least six weeks. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office was specially 18 assigned to this case due to conflicts of interest in Santa Clara County. 19 9. The Parties have been diligently completing depositions and the People has 20 requested additional documents from Defendants covering additional custodians. The additional 21 productions have been burdensome to collect and contain a large amount of documents for 22 review. Because of the additional documents to be produced, the People do not believe that the 23 requested production will be received in sufficient time for the People to adequately prepare for 24 trial. The additional documents requested are non-cumulative, are necessary due to the 25 complexities of the case, and are intended to obviate the need for additional depositions to the 26 extent possible. This remaining fact discovery, as well as expert discovery, are crucial in a case 27 involving representations made frequently and consistently over a four-year period in television 28 and radio broadcasts as well as in streaming media. 8 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 1 10. In light of these issues, the Parties have agreed to stipulate to a six-month 2 continuance of the trial date, from August 1, 2022 to January 30, 2023, and a concomitant 3 extension of all pre-trial deadlines, as well as an extension of the percipient and expert discovery 4 cutoffs to 30 days and 15 days before the new trial date, respectively. 5 11. This Court has previously ordered one continuance of the trial in this case, from 6 September 13, 2022 to August 1, 2022. A continuance at this point is necessary for the Parties to 7 be able to productively discuss whether there might be a path to resolution, and also for the 8 Parties to be able to be prepared for trial. 9 12. On June 7, 2022, my team emailed Alexandra Grayer to let her know the date and 10 time of the hearing, and confirmed that Ms. Grayner will not oppose. 11 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. 14 Executed this 7th day of June 2022 at San Francisco, California. 15 /s/ Collie F. James, IV Collie F. James, IV 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DISCOVERY DEADLINES PURSUANT TO STIPULATION