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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?