Doe v. Twitter, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Case No. 21-cv-00485-JCS

10 ORDER RE: 1) MOTION FOR JOHN DOE, et al., LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 11 RECONSIDERATION OR, IN THE Plaintiffs, ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR AN 12 ORDER PERMITTING v. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 13 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B); 2) TWITTER, INC., MOTION FOR STAY; AND 3) 14 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO Defendant. ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO 15 DISCOVERY REQUESTS

16 Re: Dkt. Nos. 80, 81, 82

17 18 Twitter has requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 19, 19 2021 order denying in part Twitter’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 69) (“Order”) or, in the alternative, 20 an order certifying the Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court 21 GRANTS the request for certification of an interlocutory appeal. A district court may certify an 22 order for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) if it: (1) involves “a controlling question of law”; 23 (2) on which there is “substantial ground[s] for difference of opinion”; and (3) “an immediate 24 appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . .” 28 25 U.S.C. § 1292(b); see In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981). The 26 Court finds that all three requirements are met here. Therefore, the Court certifies the Order for 27 interlocutory appeal. The Court GRANTS Twitter’s Motion for Stay and therefore STAYS ALL 1 Circuit. The Court DENIES the Administrative Motion to Enlarge Time on the basis that it is 2 || moot. The motion hearing set for November 19, 2021 is VACATED. 3 The parties shall notify the Court within fourteen days of the final resolution of Twitter’s 4 appeal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: October 26, 2021 3 J PH C. SPERO 9 ief Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28