Westfall v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation

Filing 86

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/14/2019 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 76 ) Motion is deemed WITHDRAWN, without prejudice for Defendant to seek similar or related relief in the future. Within 14 days of the Court's ruling on 59 Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with a proposed class discovery plan, to include proposals regarding the number, length, and anticipated topics of class member depositions. Within 14 days of receiving Defendant's plan, Plaintiffs shall give a written response indicating whether they agree to the plan or whether, if they dispute any aspect of it, and the factual basis for any such dispute. (Reader, L)

7

JOHN K. SKOUSEN, SBN 192581
[e-mail]
CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN, SBN 239089
[e-mail]
JOHN T. LAI, SBN 289949
[e-mail]
KATHERINE P. SANDBERG, SBN 301117
[e-mail]
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8

Attorneys for Defendant, BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORP.

9

MATTHEW R. EASON, SBN 160148
[e-mail]
ERIN M. SCHARG, SBN 285311
[e-mail]
EASON & TAMBORNINI, ALC
1234 H Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6

10
11
12
13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ROBERT WESTFALL, DAVID E. ANDERSON, LYNN BOBBY, and
DAVID ELLINGER

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

18
19
20

ROBERT WESTFALL, DAVID E.
ANDERSON, LYNN BOBBY, and
DAVID ELLINGER,
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23

Case No: 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING
CLASS DISCOVERY AND TRIAL PLAN;
ORDER

v.
BALL METAL BEVERAGE
CONTAINER CORP.,

24
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS DISCOVERY AND TRIAL PLAN; ORDER –
2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
FPDOCS 34420665.1

Plaintiffs ROBERT WESTFALL, DAVID E. ANDERSON, LYNN BOBBY, DAVID

1
2

ELLINGER (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant BALL METAL BEVERAGE

3

CONTAINER CORP. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) (hereinafter, collectively, the “Parties”),

4

hereby stipulate as follows:

5

WHEREAS, on August 20, 2018 the Court ordered the Parties to submit a briefing

6

schedule on Defendant’s “Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit a Trial Plan and for Relief

7

from 10-Deposition Limit” (ECF No. [76]) (hereinafter, the “Motion”) within fourteen (14)

8

days;

9

WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018 the Parties, though counsel, met and conferred by

10

telephone regarding a trial plan, and further discovery including class member depositions;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have agreed that a trial plan pursuant to Duran v. U.S. Bank, 59

11
12

Cal.4th 1 (2014) of some kind may be called for in this action, but it is premature to decide if

13

required, or to agree to its terms at this time;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that additional discovery, including class member

14
15

depositions, is warranted but the exact scope and nature of such discovery depends to some

16

degree on the Court’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.

17

[59]);
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows:

18
19



ability to re-submit such a motion in the future if necessary);

20
21

It is not necessary to proceed with the Motion at this time (subject to Defendant’s



Within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration,

22

Defendant will provide Plaintiffs with a proposed class discovery plan, to include

23

proposals regarding the number, length, and anticipated topics of class member

24

depositions;

25



Within fourteen (14) days of receiving Defendant’s plan, Plaintiffs will give a written

26

response indicating whether they agree to the plan or whether, if they dispute any

27

aspect of it, and the factual basis for any such dispute;

28



As necessary, the Parties will obtain input from experts qualified in relevant subject
1
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS DISCOVERY AND TRIAL PLAN; ORDER –
2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
FPDOCS 34420665.1

matters (such as statistics) in developing their discovery plan proposals;

1


2

Following Plaintiffs’ response, the Parties will further confer, if needed, and within

3

fourteen (14) days of such response will file a joint report to the Court regarding the

4

aspects of a discovery plan that are agreed-upon, as well as a description of any

5

disputes that the Parties desire to submit to the Court for resolution;


6

As part of the Parties’ joint submission, they will propose a schedule for completing

7

such discovery, including any modifications to the present pre-trial schedule that may

8

be needed;


9

During the course of such additional discovery, the Parties will confer regarding a

10

reasonable time for Plaintiffs to provide a “trial plan” if one is agreed as being needed,

11

and whether any motions are required in such regard; and

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS DISCOVERY AND TRIAL PLAN; ORDER –
2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
FPDOCS 34420665.1

1



The Parties’ proposals regarding such discovery plans will be for purposes of discovery

2

only, and shall be without prejudice as to the Parties’ ability to seek appropriate relief

3

from the Court to modify such plans, to seek additional discovery, to seek protective

4

orders, for Plaintiffs to take the position that no “trial plan” is needed, for Defendant to

5

seek to compel a “trial plan”, for Defendant to dispute the validity or adequacy of any

6

“trial plan” (or lack thereof) under applicable law and/or for Defendant to take the

7

position that any certified class in this action should be modified or de-certified, or for

8

the Parties to seek any other appropriate relief.

9

Dated: August 22, 2018

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

10
By:

11
12
13
14
15
16

Dated: August 22, 2018

/s/ Christopher M. Ahearn
JOHN K. SKOUSEN
CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN
JOHN T. LAI
KATHERINE P. SANDBERG
Attorneys for Defendant
BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER
CORP.
EASON & TAMBORNINI, ALC

17
By:

18
19
20
21

/s/ Matthew R. Eason (as authorized on
August 22, 2018)
MATTHEW R. EASON
ERIN M. SCHARG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBERT
WESTFALL, DAVID E. ANDERSON,
LYNN BOBBY, and DAVID ELLINGER

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS DISCOVERY AND TRIAL PLAN; ORDER –
2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
FPDOCS 34420665.1

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation and joint report, and good cause appearing

3
4

therefor, IT IS ORDERED that:


Defendant to seek similar or related relief in the future;

5
6

Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. [76]) is deemed withdrawn, without prejudice for



Within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for

7

Reconsideration (ECF No. [59], Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with a proposed

8

class discovery plan, to include proposals regarding the number, length, and

9

anticipated topics of class member depositions;

10



Within fourteen (14) days of receiving Defendant’s plan, Plaintiffs shall give a written

11

response indicating whether they agree to the plan or whether, if they dispute any

12

aspect of it, and the factual basis for any such dispute;

13



matters (such as statistics) in developing their discovery plan proposals;

14
15

As necessary, the Parties shall obtain input from experts qualified in relevant subject



Following Plaintiffs’ response, the Parties shall further confer, if needed, and within

16

fourteen (14) days of such response shall file a joint report to the Court regarding the

17

aspects of a discovery plan that are agreed-upon, as well as a description of any

18

disputes that the Parties desire to submit to the Court for resolution;

19



As part of the Parties’ joint submission, they shall propose a schedule for completing

20

such discovery, including any modifications to the present pre-trial schedule that may

21

be needed;

22



During the course of such additional discovery, the Parties shall confer regarding a

23

reasonable time for Plaintiffs to provide a “trial plan” if one is agreed as being needed,

24

and whether any motions are required in such regard; and

25



The Parties’ proposals regarding such discovery plans will be for purposes of discovery

26

only, and shall be without prejudice as to the Parties’ ability to seek appropriate relief

27

from the Court to modify such plans, to seek additional discovery, to seek protective

28

orders, for Plaintiffs to take the position that no “trial plan” is needed, for Defendant to
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS DISCOVERY
AND TRIAL PLAN – 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
FPDOCS 34420665.1

1

seek to compel a “trial plan”, for Defendant to dispute the validity or adequacy of any

2

“trial plan” (or lack thereof) under applicable law and/or for Defendant to take the

3

position that any certified class in this action should be modified or de-certified, or for

4

the Parties to seek any other appropriate relief.

5

DATED: January 14, 2019.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CLASS DISCOVERY
AND TRIAL PLAN – 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH
FPDOCS 34420665.1