Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`Rakesh N. Kilaru (pro hac vice)
`Anastasia M. Pastan (pro hac vice)
`Jenna Pavelec (pro hac vice)
`WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
`2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 847-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
`rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`
`Valarie C. Williams (Bar No. 335347)
`Tania Rice (Bar No. 294387)
`Alston & Bird LLP
`5600 Mission Street, Suite 2100
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 243-1000
`Fax: (415) 243-1001
`valarie.williams@alston.com
`tania.rice@alston.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corp.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`DANTE DEMARTINI, CURTIS BURNS, JR.,
`
`NICHOLAS ELDEN, JESSIE GALVAN,
`CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH GIDDINGS-
`LAFAYE, STEVE HERRERA, HUNTER
`JOSEPH JAKUPKO, DANIEL DERMOT
`ALFRED LOFTUS, BEOWULF EDWARD
`OWEN, and IVAN CALVO-PEREZ,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
`Washington Corporation,
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO STAY CASE;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date: February 16, 2023, or sooner if
`possible
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 8 – 19th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 16, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
`
`this Motion may be heard in Courtroom 8 of the United States District Court for the Northern
`
`District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant
`
`Microsoft Corporation will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order staying all proceedings
`
`in this case pending the completion of any regulatory proceedings that would prevent Microsoft
`
`and Activision Blizzard King from closing their proposed transaction.
`
`The motion will be made based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities herein, the accompanying Declaration of Rakesh Kilaru, all other papers
`
`and pleadings on file in this action, and any other written or oral argument or evidence that
`
`Microsoft might present to the Court.
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Microsoft requests that the Court exercise its discretion to stay all proceedings in this case.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Microsoft respectfully requests that the Court stay this case. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit has only
`
`one purpose: to enjoin Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard King. Though
`
`Plaintiffs do not mention it, thirteen days before they filed their complaint, the Federal Trade
`
`Commission (“FTC”) filed an administrative complaint seeking the same relief. See Ex. C, Docket
`
`in In re Microsoft/Activision Blizzard, FTC No. 9412; Ex. A, FTC Complaint (Dec. 8, 2022). Both
`
`Plaintiffs and the FTC allege that the proposed acquisition would lessen competition in the video
`
`game industry in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The only practical distinction between
`
`the complaints is Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction, whereas the FTC presently is not.
`
`There is nothing to preliminarily enjoin. For almost a year, Microsoft and Activision have
`
`been working cooperatively with regulators around the world, including the FTC, to obtain the
`
`necessary approvals to close the transaction. Microsoft and Activision have tried to expedite those
`
`processes as much as possible, because the transaction agreement imposes a termination date of
`
`July 18, 2023. See Ex. H, Microsoft/Activision Merger Agreement (Jan. 18, 2022), at 84. But
`
`many of those regulatory reviews remain ongoing. Among them are the European Commission
`
`(“EC”), which will review the transaction until at least April 11, 2023, and the United Kingdom’s
`
`Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”), which will be examining the transaction until at
`
`least April 26, 2023. The transaction will not close while these and certain other regulatory reviews
`
`remain open, and those reviews could result in remedies that would “shape the litigation.” South
`
`Austin Coal. Cmty. Council v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 191 F.3d 842, 844 (7th Cir. 1999)
`
`(Easterbrook, J.). Further, the FTC has indicated that it may pursue a preliminary injunction to
`
`stop the transaction from closing pending the outcome of its lawsuit.
`
`There is accordingly no reason to litigate this case right now. Microsoft is already litigating
`
`the issues presented here in front of the FTC, with the possibility of preliminary injunction
`
`proceedings involving the FTC if they become necessary. And Microsoft is at least several months
`
`away from being able to close the transaction. Judicial economy thus favors staying this action,
`
`to avoid needless and duplicative litigation and the risk of inconsistent rulings on identical issues
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`of fact and law between this case and the FTC proceeding.
`
`Microsoft accordingly requests that the Court stay these proceedings pending the
`
`completion of any regulatory proceedings that would prevent Microsoft and Activision from
`
`closing their proposed transaction.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether to stay all proceedings in this case pending the completion of any regulatory
`
`proceedings that would prevent Microsoft and Activision from closing their proposed transaction.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`This case involves a proposed transaction between the third-place manufacturer of gaming
`
`consoles and one of many publishers of popular video games. Defendant Microsoft competes in
`
`gaming through its Xbox division. Xbox started behind Nintendo and Sony when it began making
`
`consoles 20 years ago, and it remains in third place today. Xbox also has next to no presence in
`
`mobile gaming, the fastest-growing segment of gaming and the place where 94% of gamers spend
`
`their time today. And Xbox and Activision are just two of hundreds of game publishers, who
`
`compete by providing different types of games on different platforms at different prices, ranging
`
`16
`
`all the way down to $0.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`On January 18, 2022, Microsoft announced its agreement to acquire Activision Blizzard
`
`King (“Activision”). Microsoft’s vision for the transaction is simple: Xbox wants to grow its
`
`presence in mobile gaming, and three quarters of Activision’s gamers and more than a third of its
`
`revenues come from mobile offerings. Xbox believes it is good business to make Activision’s
`
`limited portfolio of popular games more accessible to consumers, by putting them on more
`
`platforms and making them more affordable. That includes making Call of Duty, one of
`
`Activision’s most popular games, more broadly available. Microsoft made this public pledge on
`
`the day the deal was announced. Since then, Xbox has agreed to provide the game to Nintendo
`
`(which does not currently have it) and has offered to continue making the game available to Sony
`
`26
`
`for ten years.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Microsoft and Activision’s agreement imposes a termination date of July 18, 2023. See
`
`Ex. H at 84. Because of that deadline, Microsoft and Activision have been working diligently to
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`ensure that they have regulatory approval to proceed with the acquisition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`From the moment the deal was announced, Microsoft and Activision have been working
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`cooperatively with regulators around the world to address any competition-related concerns about
`
`the transaction. Among others, Microsoft has been engaging with the EC and the CMA to obtain
`
`their clearance for the transaction. Both the EC’s and CMA’s review periods are ongoing and will
`
`continue for at least several more months: the EC’s current deadline for completing review is
`
`April 11, 2023, and the CMA’s deadline is April 26, 2023. See Ex. F, European Commission
`
`Docket Notice (Nov. 18, 2022); Ex. G, Competition & Markets Authority Notice of Extension
`
`(Jan. 5, 2023). Microsoft cannot close the transaction while these and certain other foreign
`
`10
`
`regulatory reviews remain open.
`
`11
`
`
`
`The FTC also began reviewing the transaction when it was announced. On December 8,
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2022, the FTC filed a complaint against Microsoft and Activision before the agency’s
`
`Administrative Law Judge, alleging that the proposed acquisition violated federal antitrust laws.
`
`See Ex. A, FTC Complaint (Dec. 8, 2022). The FTC is seeking to prohibit Microsoft and
`
`Activision from combining their businesses (except as approved by the Commission) or any other
`
`relief appropriate to remedy the alleged anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Trial is currently
`
`scheduled for August 2, 2023. See Ex. E, FTC Scheduling Order (Jan. 4, 2023). Given the time
`
`constraints on closing the deal, the parties agreed to an expedited discovery timeline, with fact
`
`discovery scheduled to close on April 7, 2023. See id. The parties agreed to that schedule to
`
`accommodate a possible preliminary injunction proceeding by the FTC. Specifically, if Microsoft
`
`obtains the necessary regulatory approvals abroad to close the transaction, expedited discovery
`
`will increase the likelihood that any preliminary injunction proceeding can be litigated and
`
`23
`
`resolved by July 18, 2023.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Against that regulatory backdrop, and just weeks after the FTC filed its complaint,
`
`Plaintiffs, a group of 10 individual gamers, filed this lawsuit and simultaneously moved for a
`
`preliminary injunction to block the proposed transaction. Like the FTC, Plaintiffs allege that the
`
`proposed acquisition would lessen competition in various markets within the video game industry
`
`in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. And Plaintiffs seek precisely the same relief—to
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`block the proposed transaction.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`This Court should enter a stay of further proceedings in this case.
`
`This Court has the “discretionary power to stay proceedings.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
`
`398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
`
`(1936)). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts consider (i) the “possible damage”
`
`that may result if the stay is granted; (ii) the “hardship or inequity” that may result if the stay is
`
`denied; and (iii) the “orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating
`
`of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. at 1110.
`
`Applying those factors, courts in this district “routinely” grant stays “where there are
`
`overlapping issues of fact or law” raised in another pending case. Vance v. Google LLC, No. 5:20-
`
`CV-04696-BLF, 2021 WL 534363, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021); see, e.g., Noble v. JP Morgan
`
`Chase Bank, No. 22-cv-02879-LB, 2022 WL 4229311, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2022) (granting
`
`a stay where resolution of related claims in state court would “illuminate similar issues” in the
`
`federal lawsuit); Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Omnicell, Inc., No. 18-CV-05345-LHK, 2019 WL 570760,
`
`at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Feb 12, 2019) (granting a stay after finding that defendant was “prejudiced” by
`
`“having to fight a ‘two-front war’”) (citation omitted); McElrath v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-CV-
`
`07241-JSC, 2017 WL 1175591, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) (granting a stay where the instant
`
`case was “in its early stages” and the outcome of the other case would “have a significant impact
`
`on this case”). That is true regardless of “whether the separate proceedings are judicial,
`
`administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are
`
`necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California,
`
`Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`Here, all of the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting a stay of this case.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs will not be harmed by a stay.
`
`Courts are “generally unwilling to presume delay is harmful without specific supporting
`
`evidence.” Aliphcom v. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 933, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Here, Plaintiffs
`
`cannot provide any evidence of harm from a stay.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, there is no immediate risk of the transaction closing, because there are
`
`several regulatory obstacles to Microsoft completing its proposed acquisition of Activision. The
`
`parties cannot close on their deal until they have regulatory approval from foreign regulators
`
`including the EC and CMA, and that approval process will take at least several more months.
`
`According to their public dockets, the EC’s current deadline for completing review is April 11,
`
`2023, and the CMA’s deadline is April 26, 2023. See Ex. F, EC Docket Notice; Ex. G, CMA
`
`Notice of Extension. Given that the parties are meanwhile unable to close the transaction, there is
`
`no need to expend court and party resources to temporarily prevent the close of the transaction.
`
`Cf. Cassan Enters., Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., No. 10-cv-01934-JCC, slip op., at 5 (W.D.
`
`Wash. Mar. 11, 2011) (“It is self-evident that Plaintiffs have not suffered any injury from the
`
`proposed acquisition: It has not yet taken place.”) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Moreover, the FTC’s ongoing litigation seeks precisely the same relief that Plaintiffs
`
`want—to block Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision. Compare Ex. A, FTC Complaint,
`
`at 23 (seeking a “prohibition against any transaction between Microsoft and Activision that
`
`combines their businesses, except as may be approved by the Commission”) with Plaintiffs’
`
`Complaint at 40–41 (seeking to “[p]reliminarily enjoin[] Defendants from consummating the
`
`merger” or to “[p]ermanently enjoin[] Defendants from consummating the merger”). Plaintiffs’
`
`interests are thus fully represented by the FTC. Cf. Howard Hess Dental Lab’ys Inc. v. Dentsply
`
`dockfactor into its equitable analysis the effect of another injunction on the plaintiff’s showing of
`
`injury.”). The FTC has statutory authority to seek a preliminary injunction or temporary
`
`restraining order to block the acquisition. 15 U.S.C. § 53(a), (b). It has not done so yet because
`
`there are other approvals currently preventing the parties from closing. At the January 3, 2023
`
`scheduling conference in the FTC matter, the FTC’s trial counsel represented to the ALJ that it
`
`would pursue a preliminary injunction in federal court at a later date if it becomes necessary. See
`
`Ex. D, Transcript of FTC Initial Prehearing Scheduling Conference (Jan. 3, 2023), at 8:7–9.
`
`The EC, the CMA, and the FTC are investigating the same issues raised by the Plaintiffs’
`
`claims, the parties cannot close because of ongoing investigations, and the FTC can try to stop the
`
`transaction to the extent there is any risk of the parties closing before that case is resolved.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Therefore, there is no risk of harm in staying Plaintiffs’ case while those regulatory proceedings
`
`are ongoing.
`
`Under these circumstances, a stay of this case would not harm Plaintiffs.
`
`B. Microsoft will suffer hardship if a stay is denied.
`
`By contrast, Microsoft will be harmed if a stay is denied. Absent a stay, Microsoft will be
`
`forced to simultaneously litigate similar legal and factual issues before two different judges. That
`
`two-front litigation would result in unnecessary duplication of litigation efforts and would create
`
`a risk of inconsistent rulings. See Vance, 2021 WL 534363, at *5.
`
`As for duplication, the Plaintiffs’ complaint raises many of the same issues as the FTC’s
`
`complaint, so there is potential for “significant overlap in the discovery in both cases, creating
`
`additional expenses” for the parties. Id. at *6; see also Arris Enters. LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 17-
`
`CV-02669-BLF, 2017 WL 3283937, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2017) (noting that without a stay in
`
`one action, the parties may “have to conduct multiple depositions of the same witnesses”). For
`
`example, both complaints articulate similar theories about the potential anticompetitive effects of
`
`the proposed transaction, including that Xbox would allegedly have the incentive to make popular
`
`Activision games, like Call of Duty, exclusive to Xbox (despite Xbox’s public pledge to keep
`
`existing Activision games on their existing platforms). Given the considerable overlap between
`
`the complaints, there would necessarily be duplicative discovery. That unnecessary expense and
`
`inefficiency would be avoided if the Court stays this case while the FTC case is ongoing.
`
`As for the risk of inconsistent rulings, both complaints rest on a number of shared threshold
`
`questions, the answers to which could lead to different conclusions about the ultimate antitrust
`
`claims. For example, both complaints will require a determination of the relevant product markets
`
`and of the scope of the relevant geographic market for these claims. If the two tribunals
`
`simultaneously consider those questions, there is considerable “potential for inconsistent rulings
`
`and resulting confusion.” Vance, 2021 WL 534363, at *5 (quotation omitted); see also SST
`
`Millennium LLC v. Mission St. Dev. LLC, No. 18-CV-06681-YGR, 2019 WL 2342277, at *5 (N.D.
`
`Cal. June 3, 2019) (finding that denying a stay would pose “hardship” to the moving party due to
`
`the “possibility of inconsistent and adverse rulings” in the parallel action). And there are many,
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`many other overlapping questions between the two cases. For example, both complaints make
`
`similar allegations about the anticompetitive effects of the transaction:
`
`• Both complaints allege that the acquisition would give Microsoft the ability and incentive
`
`to withhold Activision games, like Call of Duty, from other platforms;
`
`• Both complaints allege that the acquisition would give Microsoft the ability and incentive
`
`to degrade the quality of Activision games, like Call of Duty, provided to other platforms;
`
`and
`
`• Both complaints allege that the acquisition will allow Microsoft to increase its market
`
`power in subscription services and cloud gaming.
`
`Those overlapping questions, and others, further amplify the risk that simultaneous proceedings
`
`could “produce a number of factually and legally inconsistent rulings.” Aliphcom, 154 F. Supp.
`
`12
`
`3d at 939–40.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`There is simply no benefit to litigating the same issues twice—particularly where the
`
`resolution of the FTC proceeding, which was first filed, could render the other litigation moot. See
`
`Vance, 2021 WL 534363, at *5. Indeed, courts regularly dismiss private plaintiffs’ antitrust claims
`
`when the relief sought by the private plaintiffs has already been secured by a government
`
`enforcement action. See, e.g., DeHoog v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, 899 F.3d 758, 765 (9th
`
`Cir. 2018) (affirming district court’s dismissal of private plaintiffs’ antitrust claims where “the
`
`DOJ reached a settlement to ‘prevent increased concentration’ in the market”); Edstrom v.
`
`Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, No. C 13-1309 MMC, 2013 WL 5124149 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13,
`
`2013) (dismissing private plaintiffs’ antitrust claims where the merging parties had revised their
`
`agreement to avoid the alleged anticompetitive behavior pursuant to a court order in a DOJ
`
`enforcement action); Insulate SB, Inc. v. Advanced Finishing Sys., Inc., No. CIV. 13-2664
`
`ADM/SER, 2014 WL 943224, at *9 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2014) (dismissing private plaintiffs’
`
`request for injunctive relief where the requested relief “duplicates the FTC Order”).
`
`The hardship that would result from denying the stay here thus weighs in favor of granting
`
`27
`
`it.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`-8-
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`C.
`
`A stay will promote the orderly course of justice.
`
`Finally, judicial economy strongly favors a stay of this action. Generally, “[d]uplication
`
`of case management tasks by multiple courts is not an economical use of judicial resources.”
`
`Vance, 2021 WL 534363, at *6. When considering whether to grant a stay, courts thus consider
`
`the potential for “simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law.” Lockyer,
`
`398 F.3d at 1110 (quotation omitted).
`
`As discussed above, there is considerable overlap between the legal and factual issues
`
`presented in this case and the ongoing FTC litigation. Staying this case while the FTC litigation
`
`is ongoing would thus simplify the issues in this matter. See SST Millennium, 2019 WL 2342277,
`
`at *5 (“[G]iven the interdependence and identical nature of plaintiffs’ claims against each
`
`defendant, resolution of plaintiffs’ claims against [the defendant in one action] will simplify issues,
`
`proof, and questions of law with respect to the claims” at issue in the other.”) (citation and
`
`quotation omitted). Although the FTC’s rulings are not binding on this court, “the discovery and
`
`the rulings can still benefit this case.” Arris Enters. LLC, 2017 WL 3283937, at *4. By allowing
`
`the FTC to “resolve some of these overlapping issues” in the first instance, this Court can avoid
`
`inconsistent rulings and the prospect of wasting judicial resources on duplicative efforts. Vance,
`
`2021 WL 534363, at *6. Indeed, as the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts often wait for
`
`agencies, even when the agencies’ views are not legally conclusive not only because the agencies
`
`may have something helpful to say, but also because what the agencies do may shape the
`
`litigation.” South Austin, 191 F.3d at 844.
`
`The orderly course of justice would therefore be served by entering a stay in this case.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Microsoft respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion
`
`to stay further proceedings in this case. While the case is stayed, Microsoft will provide the Court
`
`with timely updates of any material developments in the ongoing regulatory proceedings. If a stay
`
`is entered, Microsoft would be willing to provide timely updates regarding any material
`
`developments in the regulatory proceedings that would affect the timing of closing the transaction.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`January 11, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Rakesh N. Kilaru
`Rakesh N. Kilaru (pro hac vice)
`Anastasia M. Pastan (pro hac vice)
`Jenna Pavelec (pro hac vice)
`WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
`2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 847-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
`rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`
`Valarie C. Williams (Bar No. 335347)
`Tania Rice (Bar No. 294387)
`Alston & Bird LLP
`5600 Mission Street, Suite 2100
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 243-1000
`Fax: (415) 243-1001
`valarie.williams@alston.com
`tania.rice@alston.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corp.
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`DEFENDANT MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`Rakesh N. Kilaru (pro hac vice)
`Anastasia M. Pastan (pro hac vice)
`Jenna Pavelec (pro hac vice)
`WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
`2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 847-4000
`Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
`rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`jpavelec@wilkinsonstekloff.com
`
`Valarie C. Williams (Bar No. 335347)
`Tania Rice (Bar No. 294387)
`Alston & Bird LLP
`5600 Mission Street, Suite 2100
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 243-1000
`Fax: (415) 243-1001
`valarie.williams@alston.com
`tania.rice@alston.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corp.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`DANTE DEMARTINI, CURTIS BURNS, JR.,
`
`NICHOLAS ELDEN, JESSIE GALVAN,
`CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH GIDDINGS-
`LAFAYE, STEVE HERRERA, HUNTER
`JOSEPH JAKUPKO, DANIEL DERMOT
`ALFRED LOFTUS, BEOWULF EDWARD
`OWEN, and IVAN CALVO-PEREZ,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
`Washington Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO STAY CASE;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date: February 16, 2023, or sooner if
`possible
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 8 – 19h Floor
`Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-08991-JSC Document 26 Filed 01/11/23 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Defendant Microsoft moved to stay all proceedings in this case pending the completion
`
`of any regulatory proceedings that would prevent Microsoft and Activision Blizzard King from
`
`closing their proposed transaction.
`
`After considering the briefs, the arguments of counsel, and the evidence of record, the
`
`Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Stay and STAYS the case pending further action from
`
`this Court. Defendant SHALL provide timely updates regarding any material developments in
`
`the regulatory proceedings that would affect the timing of closing the transaction.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`Date: ______________, 2023
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-08991-JSC
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MSFT’S MOTION TO STAY
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`