National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 158

NOTICE by Target Corporation Target Corporation's Revised Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 11/28/2007)

National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Doc. 158

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

HAROLD J. McELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) MATTHEW I. KREEGER (CA SBN 153793) KRISTINA PASZEK (CA SBN 226351) [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of their members, and Bruce F. Sexton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No.

C 06-01802 MHP

TARGET CORPORATION'S REVISED RULE 26(F) PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

TARGET'S REVISED RULE 26(F) PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN CASE NO. C 06-01802 MHP sf-2427795
Dockets.Justia.com

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

The parties have met and conferred in an attempt to reach agreement about case management. The parties have reached agreement regarding the duration of discovery periods and the deadline for filing dispositive motions. The parties continue to disagree as to when merits discovery should commence, and whether depositions of proposed class representatives can be taken now before merits discovery begins. The Court entered an order on October 2, 2007, that granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Target has filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to seek review of that decision. Among other things, Target maintains that it was improper for the Court to certify, for purposes of plaintiffs' ADA claim, a nationwide class with a class representative to be designated later. Target's petition, plaintiffs' opposition, and Target's motion for leave to file a reply brief were filed with the Ninth Circuit on October 16, October 30, and November 5, 2007, respectively, and are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C. Target maintains that the most efficient case management approach is to begin merits discovery after the Ninth Circuit rules on Target's petition for leave to appeal the class certification order. Target also maintains that it should be permitted to depose plaintiffs' proposed class representatives now, so that their adequacy as representatives can be tested. Plaintiffs have refused to provide dates for these depositions unless Target agrees to begin merits discovery. Target understands that the Court has requested that the parties submit revised discovery plans under Rule 26(f). Target's proposed discovery plan follows: Initial Disclosures As stated in the Joint Case Management Statement filed on October 13, 2006, the parties have made their Rule 26 initial disclosures. Limitations on Discovery The Court has already ruled, in its order of October 24, 2006, that requests for admission, interrogatories, and documents requests are each limited to sixty per side. In the same order, the Court ruled that depositions were to be limited to twenty per side. The Court
TARGET'S REVISED RULE 26(F) PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN CASE NO. C 06-01802 MHP sf-2427795

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

subsequently ruled on May 31, 2007, that Target could depose up to ten additional putative class members who filed declarations on May 25, 2007, and these depositions would not count against the limit of twenty depositions per side. As explained below, Target believes that depositions of proposed new class representatives likewise should not count against the limit of twenty depositions per side. Discovery Schedule Target should have an opportunity to depose the individuals that plaintiffs seek to substitute as class representatives for the nationwide class. Target is entitled to test the adequacy of any proposed class representatives to determine whether they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. These depositions are part of class certification discovery, which is already open, and there is no reason for their delay. Furthermore, because the substitution of new class representatives was not foreseen when the Court previously ordered a limit on depositions and when Target decided whom to depose, these depositions should not count against the previously ordered limit. The parties have reached agreement as to the proposed duration of the relevant periods of discovery; the only dispute is whether that discovery should begin now or await a ruling on Target's Ninth Circuit 23(f) petition. Assuming that Target's Rule 23(f) petition is denied, Target proposes the following schedule: A. Merits fact discovery would begin shortly after the issuance of an order on

Target's Rule 23(f) petition and would close eight months later. B. The deadline for simultaneous expert disclosures required by the Federal

Rules would be four weeks after the close of merits fact discovery. C. The deadline for simultaneous expert rebuttal disclosures would be four weeks

after the deadline for expert disclosures. D. The deadline for expert discovery would be four weeks after the deadline for

expert rebuttal disclosures. E. The deadline for the filing of dispositive motions would be six weeks after the

deadline for expert discovery.
TARGET'S REVISED RULE 26(F) PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN CASE NO. C 06-01802 MHP sf-2427795

2

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

Service of Discovery As stated in the Joint Case Management Statement filed on October 13, 2006, the parties have agreed that discovery can be served via email to the attorneys of record for the opposing party and that such service shall constitute service by hand under the Federal Rules.

Dated: November 28, 2007

HAROLD J. McELHINNY MATTHEW I. KREEGER KRISTINA PASZEK MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/Harold J. McElhinny Harold J. McElhinny Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION

TARGET'S REVISED RULE 26(F) PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN CASE NO. C 06-01802 MHP sf-2427795

3