Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Filing 196

MOTION Miscellaneous Administrative Request to Reset Dates and Deadlines filed by Bernard Paul Parrish, Herbert Anthony Adderley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hilbert, Ryan) (Filed on 12/3/2007)

Download PDF
Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated Doc. 196 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 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP RONALD S. KATZ (Bar No. CA 085713) E-mail: rkatz@manatt.com RYAN S. HILBERT (California Bar No. 210549) E-mail: rhilbert@manatt.com NOEL S. COHEN (California Bar No. 219645) E-mail: ncohen@manatt.com 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1006 Telephone: (650) 812-1300 Facsimile: (650) 213-0260 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. LEWIS T. LECLAIR (Bar No. CA 077136) E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com JILL ADLER (Bar No. CA 150783) E-mail: jadler@mckoolsmith.com 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. C07 0943 WHA BERNARD PAUL PARRISH, HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLEY, and WALTER ROBERTS, III on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, a Virginia corporation, and NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED d/b/a PLAYERS INC, a Virginia corporation, PLAINTIFFS' MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO RESET DATES AND DEADLINES [N.D. LOCAL RULE 7-11] Defendants. MISC. REQUEST RE-SETTING DEADLINES 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 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiffs Bernard Paul Parrish and Herbert Anthony Adderley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), hereby respectfully request that the Court re-set certain dates and deadlines at issue in this case. Plaintiffs make this request because recent motion practice and a stay on discovery have caused certain deadlines in this case, including Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Motion for Class Certification, to pass and the parties have lost time during which to conduct discovery. Defendants' counsel has met and conferred with Plaintiff's counsel about this issue. As explained below, the parties were able to agree on most of the new deadlines, but were unable to agree on a new deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Defendants have indicated that they oppose Plaintiffs' submission and want an opportunity to respond to this motion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS On June 14, 2007, the Court held a Case Management Conference in this matter and issued a Scheduling Order setting forth, among other things, the following dates and deadlines: October 18, 2007: December 6, 2007: May 9, 2008: May 9, 2008: May 30, 2008: June 26, 2008: September 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm: September 22, 2008 @ 7:30 am: Last day to file motion for certification Hearing on certification motion Non-expert discovery cut-off Last day to file expert reports Last day to file replies in support of expert reports Last day to file dispositive motions Final Pretrial Conference Jury trial commences Following the Court's Scheduling Order, the parties engaged in motion practice, and Defendants requested, and were granted, a stay on discovery. The stay on discovery was lifted pursuant to the Court's Order dated November 14, 2007, in which it also moved the close of discovery to May 23, 2008. These events caused the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification to pass, and the stay caused the parties to lose time during which to conduct discovery. MISC. REQUEST RE-SETTING DEADLINES 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 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O In an effort to address these issues, on November 21, 2007, Plaintiffs' counsel sent Defendants' counsel a letter proposing new dates. Provided the parties could agree on such dates, Plaintiff's counsel proposed submitting the new dates to the Court in the form of a Joint Stipulation. A copy of Plaintiffs' November 21, 2007 letter is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ryan S. Hilbert, filed concurrently herewith. On November 26, 2007, the parties met and conferred telephonically about Plaintiffs' proposed dates, among other things. During this call, Defendants' counsel proposed numerous changes to the dates offered by Plaintiffs. In an e-mail dated November 27, 2007, Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that Plaintiffs agreed to each of Defendant's proposed dates, except the deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The parties subsequently exchanged several lengthy e-mails on this issue, but, as explained below, were unable to agree on a date. Attached as Exhibit B to the Hilbert Declaration is an e-mail string showing the parties' correspondence on this issue, including Plaintiffs' November 27 e-mail. Because the parties had agreed on all but one of the dates, Plaintiffs proposed submitting a Joint Stipulation to the Court that listed all of the agreed-upon dates while giving the Court the option to determine for itself when it wishes to hear Plaintiffs' certification motion. See Exhibit B (November 28, 2007 E-Mail from Ryan Hilbert to David Feher). Defendants objected to this request. This motion followed. II. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST, AND ASK THAT THE COURT ADOPT, THOSE NEW DEADLINES ON WHICH THE PARTIES AGREE As explained above, during the parties' call on November 26, Defendants proposed, and Plaintiffs subsequently agreed and now ask that the Court adopt, the following schedule (independent of the deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as explained below): May 23, 2008: Non-expert discovery cut-off (pursuant to the Court's November 14, 2007 Order) May 23, 2008: June 13, 2008: June 27, 2008: July 9, 2008: Last day to file expert reports Last day to submit expert "opposition reports" Last day to file expert reply reports Close of expert discovery 2 MISC. REQUEST RE-SETTING DEADLINES CASE NO. C:07-0943 WHA 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 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O July 11, 2008: September 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm: September 22, 2008 @ 7:30 am: III. Last day to file dispositive motions Final Pretrial Conference Jury trial commences PLAINTIFFS REQUEST, AND ASK THAT THE COURT ADOPT, FEBRUARY 7, 2008 AS THE DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set the deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for February 7, 2008, with such motion being heard on a 49-day track (as originally set forth in the Scheduling Order). Plaintiffs believe this date is consistent with what the Court had in mind during the June 14 CMC, in which it originally set the deadline for September 13, 2007 ­ i.e., early in the discovery period and well before the close of fact discovery on May 9, 2008. Plaintiffs also believe that it is in both parties', and, more importantly, the Court's interests to have a determination on whether this case can be certified as soon as practicable. A February 7, 2008 deadline would result in a hearing before the Court on March 27, 2008. Assuming the Court rendered its decision shortly thereafter, the issue of certification could be resolved well before the parties had to engage in expert discovery, thereby possibly conserving resources. It would also give the parties sufficient time to conduct any last-minute discovery, if necessary, thereby relieving some of the pressure of having to do so while dealing with certification. Defendants have objected to Plaintiffs' proposed deadline on several grounds. Defendants claim that February 7 is untenable because two of the over a dozen attorneys representing Defendants in this case (11 of whom have been admitted pro hac) will be in trial in another case in January 2008. As Plaintiffs informed Defendants, however, with a 49-day track, the deadline for Defendants to file their opposition would be February 28, 2008. This is at least a month after Defendants' counsel's trial (should it even proceed on that date). Defendants also have objected to Plaintiffs' proposed deadline ­ and would not even agree to let the Court decide when it would like to hear Plaintiffs' certification motion ­ on the ground that it somehow impairs Defendants' ability to timely conduct discovery. Defendants' argument 3 MISC. REQUEST RE-SETTING DEADLINES CASE NO. C:07-0943 WHA 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 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O is premised on the fact that Plaintiffs are still waiting for Defendants to produce documents responsive to 20 document requests that were served in June 2007 (at the same time Plaintiffs have completed their production), and that Plaintiffs currently intend to conduct no more than four or five depositions (including depositions of third parties) between now and February 7, 2008. At least three of these depositions had been confirmed with Defendants prior to their request for a stay on discovery. Defendants also incorrectly believe that Plaintiffs intend to force Defendants to conduct two massive document productions. As Plaintiffs have explained, they simply expect to receive those documents that are long overdue, at which point they will determine whether and which additional documents are necessary. This is very typical in a case such as this. In response to Defendants' objection, Plaintiffs have informed Defendants that Plaintiffs' certification motion and Defendants' discovery obligations are mutually independent. The parties have already met and conferred about Plaintiffs' discovery concerns and Plaintiffs will be submitting to Defendants a proposal that they believe will reduce the size of Defendants' current document production. It would be imprudent for the parties and the Court to postpone implementing a new scheduling order until the parties are able to resolve their differences on discovery, especially since these differences may not even require judicial intervention. In response to Plaintiffs' proposal of February 7, 2008, Defendants originally proposed a deadline of May 30, 2008, which is one week after the close of discovery. When Plaintiffs refused, Defendants counter-proposed mid-March, which, in addition to being three and one-half months from today and a mere two months before the close of discovery, would have resulted in a hearing date of May 2, 2008. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that with the close of discovery and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their expert reports only 3 weeks later on May 23, the parties would have to engage in a significant amount of work at the same time they are dealing with certification. As the party who originally asked for the stay on discovery, Defendants were essentially asking Plaintiffs to face the consequences of their request by agreeing to a compressed schedule on the back end. Though Defendants have since modified their offer to shorten the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion, this still results in a compressed schedule near the close 4 MISC. REQUEST RE-SETTING DEADLINES CASE NO. C:07-0943 WHA 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 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW PALO A L T O of discovery. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court adopt the proposed dates set forth herein. Dated: December 3, 2007 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP By: /s/ Ryan S. Hilbert Ronald S. Katz (SBN 085713) Ryan S. Hilbert (SBN 210549) Noel S. Cohen (SBN 219645) MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1006 Telephone: (650) 812-1300 Facsimile: (650) 213-0260 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lewis T. LeClair, Esq. Jill Adler, Esq. McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 214-978-4984 214-978-4044 (fax) 5 MISC. REQUEST RE-SETTING DEADLINES CASE NO. C:07-0943 WHA

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?