STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE [1] DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' ACTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA'S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE AND MOTION TO DISMISS, AND [2] HEARING DATE FOR SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

In support of their joint stipulation regarding the hearing on and reply brief in support of Defendants' special motion to strike and motion to dismiss, Plaintiff Timothy Forsyth and Defendants Motion Picture Association of America Inc., Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc., and the National Association of Theatre Owners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, recite as follows:

A. On April 29, 2016, Defendants filed joint motions to strike Plaintiff's entire action pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and to dismiss Plaintiff's entire action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Defendant National Association of Theater Owners filed a supplemental brief in support of same.

B. Pursuant to the parties' May 15, 2016 stipulation (ECF No. 39), and the Court's May 17, 2016 order approving that stipulation (ECF No. 40), Plaintiff's Opposition brief was due on or before July 15, 2016, and was not to exceed 40 pages of text (rather than the 25-page limit under the local rules).

C. Also pursuant to the parties' May 15, 2016 stipulation, the parties agreed that, following the filing of Plaintiff's Opposition, the parties would meet and confer regarding the date by which Defendants would file their Reply brief(s), the page limit for the Reply brief(s), and a hearing date for the motions. The parties agreed in the stipulation that they would propose a hearing date no earlier than three weeks after the filing of the Reply brief(s).

D. The parties met and conferred by telephone and email regarding these issues over several days, and agreed that Defendants' deadline to file a Reply in support of their motion to strike and motion to dismiss should be September 15, 2016. The additional time is necessary based on (i) the number of issues that Defendants are required to address in replying to Plaintiff's Opposition and (ii) Defendants' counsel's work and vacation schedules in August. Upon reviewing the Court's calendar, the parties also agreed that October 27, 2016, was the most mutually convenient available hearing date. This date was selected because all parties are available on that date, and the Court is not available on October 6 and 20. The parties further agreed that, in order to address Plaintiff's Opposition, Defendants' Reply brief(s) should be allowed to exceed the 15-page limit set by local rules, but shall not exceed 25 pages of text. While the Defendants will endeavor to file a single Reply brief, to the extent that they file more than one brief, the collective pages will not exceed 25.

E. The parties also conferred and agreed that, for the sake of efficiency, the upcoming case management conference should be continued to the same date and time as the hearing on Defendants' motion to strike and motion to dismiss. The case management conference is currently scheduled for September 22, 2016. (ECF No. 41.)

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate that, subject to the Court's approval:

1. Defendants' special motion to strike Plaintiff's action pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, in Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, and Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), will be heard on October 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.;

2. Defendants' Reply brief(s) is due on or before September 15, 2016, and shall not exceed 25 combined pages of text (exclusive of caption page and tables);

3. The case management conference currently scheduled for September 22, 2016, shall be continued to October 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PARTIES' STIPULATION AND ON THAT BASIS THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED.