Aguilar v. Wawona Frozen Foods et al

Filing 63

ORDER Denying 55 Motion for Trial Plan, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/2016. (Defendants' motion for an order requiring plaintiffs to submit a detailed trial plan with their motion for class certification is denied at this time without prejudice. The previously noticed 4/19/2016, and continued by stipulation to 6/13/2016, hearing on defendants' motion is vacated.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS AGUILAR, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:15-cv-00093-DAD-EPG

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRIAL
PLAN

WAWONA FROZEN FOODS, et al.,
(Doc. No. 55)
Defendants.

16
On February 17, 2016, defendants submitted a motion seeking an order requiring plaintiffs
17
to submit a trial plan. (Doc. No. 55.) On April 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opposition to that
18
motion. (Doc. No. 58.) Defendants filed a reply on April 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 74.) Because the
19
court finds that resolution of this motion will not benefit from oral argument, see Local Rule
20
230(g), the April 19, 2016 hearing is vacated in light of this order.
21
In their motion defendants requested that the court issue an order requiring plaintiffs to
22
submit a detailed trial plan with their motion for class certification. Defendants argue that
23

plaintiff‟s trial plan should include: 1) an explanation of how the membership of the class will be

24
established; 2) an explanation of how liability will be established; 3) an explanation of how
25
defendants will have an opportunity to present their liability defenses; 4) an explanation of how
26
damages will be calculated; 5) a witness list and summary of the expected testimony of any trial
27
witnesses; 6) proposed jury instructions; and 7) a proposed verdict form.
28
1

1

At the outset, the court notes that no class has yet been certified in this action and the date

2

for plaintiffs‟ filing of a class certification motion is currently set for July 19, 2016. (Doc. No.

3

60.) Phase I discovery is anticipated to close on July 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 60.) Plaintiffs note in

4

their opposition to the pending motion that they “simply will not be in possession of all of the

5

evidence on merits and damages at the conclusion of class discovery to file a trial plan.” (Doc.

6

No. 58 at 1.) Were the court to require the filing of a trial plan with the class certification motion,

7

plaintiffs insist they must be allowed to engage in merits discovery simultaneously with class

8

certification discovery, rather than the bifurcated discovery procedure that has been established in

9

this action. (Doc. No. 58 at 12–13.)

10

Defendants have cited no binding authority suggesting a trial plan must be filed at this

11

stage in a class action. See In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 537, 580 (C.D. Cal. 2014)

12

(“[T]he Ninth Circuit has held that „[n]othing in the Advisory Committee Notes [to Rule 23]

13

suggests grafting a requirement for a trial plan onto the rule.‟”) (quoting Chamberlan v. Ford

14

Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952, 961 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005)); Tschudy v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.,

15

No. 11CV1011 JM (KSC), 2015 WL 5098446, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015) (“[Defendant] did

16

not mention the need for a trial plan at class certification, and the Federal Rules and the Ninth

17

Circuit do not require one.”) More importantly, defendants have presented no persuasive

18

argument that it would be prudent or wise for the court to require plaintiffs to file such a detailed

19

trial plan at this early point in this particular litigation. To the extent defendants, through their

20

request, are preemptively arguing against class certification, the court declines to engage those

21

arguments at this time, since no class certification motion is yet before the court.
In support of their motion defendants rely primarily upon the California Supreme Court‟s

22
23

decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association, 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014). However, in that case

24

the California Supreme Court did not compel California courts to require a trial plan from class

25

action plaintiffs at the class certification stage. Rather, the California Supreme Court merely

26

stated:

27
28

If statistical evidence will comprise part of the proof on class action
claims, the court should consider at the certification stage whether a
trial plan has been developed to address its use. A trial plan
2

1

describing the statistical proof a party anticipates will weigh in
favor of granting class certification if it shows how individual
issues can be managed at trial. Rather than accepting assurances
that a statistical plan will eventually be developed, trial courts
would be well advised to obtain such a plan before deciding to
certify a class action. In any event, decertification must be ordered
whenever a trial plan proves unworkable.

2
3
4
5

59 Cal. 4th at 31–32 (emphasis added). At most, this passage from the decision in Duran stands

6

as an admonition to California trial courts that it may be in their best interest to seek trial plans

7

early, rather than risk being forced to decertify the class at a later stage in the proceedings.
Concerns about how the trial of the class action will be managed are, for obvious reasons,

8
9

often best reserved until it becomes clear there may actually be a class action trial (i.e. after a

10

class is certified). They are normally, therefore, properly raised after significant merits-phase

11

discovery has taken place. See Lyndell v. Synthes USA, 1:11-cv-02053 LJO BAM, 2016 WL

12

74419, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016) (denying defendant‟s motion to decertify class even

13

though plaintiff had still not yet submitted a viable trial plan post-certification); In re ConAgra

14

Foods, Inc., 302 F.R.D. at 580 (“Thus, if at some point [the court] determines that some or all of

15

plaintiffs‟ classes can be certified, it will direct plaintiffs to submit a trial plan for its

16

consideration. . . . Because the court is not in a position to certify classes now, it need not address

17

the question of a trial plan in any greater detail at this time.”); Oregon-Laborer’s Employers

18

Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morse, Inc., 188 F.R.D. 365, 369 (D. Or. 1998) („[T]his

19

court concludes that a ruling on plaintiffs‟ motion to certify is appropriate without awaiting the

20

completion of briefing on dispositive motions and without requiring plaintiffs to present a class

21

action trial plan.”). Accordingly, the court agrees with plaintiffs that defendants‟ request for a

22

detailed trial plan is premature at this juncture in this case.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants‟ motion for an order requiring plaintiffs to

23
24

submit a detailed trial plan with their motion for class certification (Doc. No. 55) is denied at this

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
3

1

time without prejudice. The previously noticed April 19, 2016 hearing on defendants‟ motion is

2

vacated.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

April 15, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4