Campbell v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP

Filing 504

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/12/11: Defendant's motion to re-open discovery is DENIED 494 . Defendant SHALL file a new motion to decertify the class no later than February 17, 2012. Plaintiffs SHALL file an opposition to the decertification motion no later than March 2, 2012. Defendant SHALL file a reply, if any, no later than March 12, 2012. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

JASON CAMPBELL and
SARAH SOBEK, individually,
and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current
and former employees of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,
NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP,
a Limited Liability Partnership;,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

O R D E R

17
Defendant.
/

18
19

Pending before the court is a motion to re-open discovery in

20

this case, following remand from the Ninth Circuit. The motion

21

resulted in extended discussion concerning matters relating to

22

class certification, but essentially irrelevant to the instant

23

motion.

24

The court’s deadline for completing non-expert discovery in

25

this case was February 20, 2009. ECF No. 254. In March 2009 this

26

court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on the question of
1

1

whether class members were exempt from overtime pay under the 2001

2

Wage Order issued by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission.

3

The court certified the issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed

4

all proceedings in the case, including a motion by defendant to

5

decertify the class. ECF No. 425. On June 15, 2011, the Ninth

6

Circuit reversed this court’s March 2009 summary judgment order.

7

Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 642 F.3d 820 (9th Cir.

8

2011). Defendant has indicated that it intends to file a new motion

9

to decertify the class. Defendant now seek to re-open discovery in

10

light of the Ninth Circuit decision and the intervening Supreme

11

Court opinion concerning class certification in Walmart Stores

12

Inc., v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011).

13

By an order of this court, discovery was to be completed by

14

February 20, 2009. The court finds that cases decided subsequent

15

to that date have not altered the issues faced by the parties in

16

this case. The factual issues relevant to this case subsequent to

17

Campbell and Walmart were relevant before those opinions were

18

issued. The court notes that it must defend its own rules,

19

including the deadlines set in this case.

20

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

21

[1] Defendant’s motion to re-open discovery, ECF No.

22

494, is DENIED.

23

[2] Defendant SHALL file a new motion to decertify the

24

class no later than February 17, 2012.

25

[3]

26

decertification motion no later than March 2, 2012.

Plaintiffs

SHALL

2

file

an

opposition

to

the

1

[4] Defendant SHALL file a reply, if any, no later than

2

March 12, 2012.

3

[5] A hearing on the decertification motion is specially

4

SET for March 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED:

December 12, 2011.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3