Velasquez et al v. HSBC Finance Corporation et al

Filing 114

ORDER Revising Deadlines for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 6/21/2010. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

GEORGE J. TICHY, II, Bar No. 041146 MICHAEL F. MCCABE, Bar No. 111151 MICHELLE R. BARRETT, Bar No. 197280 SOFIJA ANDERSON, Bar No. 221602 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION and Beneficial Company LLC PETER A. MUHIC, pro hac vice ROBERT W. BIELA, pro hac vice BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King Of Prussia Road Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail], [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN FRANCISCO 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants. 27 28 ///
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ]

PAUL VELASQUEZ, FAVIOLA ALVAREZ, MARCELO ALTAMIRANO, JACKEY WILSON II, CARLOS MARTINEZ and DIONICIO MARTINEZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION; BENEFICIAL COMPANY LLC,

Case No.: C 08-04592-SC [MEJ] STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Judge: Courtroom: Complaint Filed: Trial Date: Senior Judge Samuel Conti 1, 17th Floor October 2, 2008 No date set

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

THIS STIPULATION AND PROPOSED REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER is made by and entered into between Defendants HSBC Finance Corporation and Beneficial Company LLC (collectively, "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Marcelo Altamirano and Jackey Wilson II (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a nationwide collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former Account Executives who were employed by Defendants. As such, Plaintiffs now seek only to bring this action as a California state class action on behalf of themselves and all other current and former Account Executives who were employed by Defendants in the State of California. WHEREAS, on January 29, 2010, counsel for Defendants, Seyfarth Shaw, was withdrawn and was superseded as defense counsel by the law firm of Littler Mendelson (Docket No. 106); WHEREAS, at the time of substitution of counsel for Defendants, the parties were mired in significant, unresolved discovery disputes; WHEREAS, the law firm of Littler Mendelson has spent a significant amount of time meeting and conferring with both the law firms of Seyfarth Shaw and Plaintiffs' counsel to investigate, understand and work to resolve the discovery disputes; WHEREAS, Littler Mendelson and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check continue to work closely together to resolve these discovery issues in order to advance the litigation; WHEREAS, since Littler Mendelson has taken over defense of this case, it has taken a significant amount of time (approximately four months) just to identify and obtain the universe of documents due to the fact that the entities that employed the putative class members (Account Executives) have ceased operations and moved these documents to various storage locations both in the State of California and other areas of the country; WHEREAS, it has taken a significant amount of time and much longer than expected (approximately three months) to accomplish the threshold discovery procedure of obtaining and electronically scanning the universe of documents to put into a form necessary for review in anticipation of production; WHEREAS, Defendants discovered upon completion of the scanning process that there were approximately 625,000 documents--with the majority of documents consisting of anywhere from
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1.

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ]

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

approximately 3 to 25 pages in length--that are potentially relevant to this litigation, which Defendants estimate would take between one (1) and one and one-half (1 ½) years to completely review and produce; WHEREAS, in an effort to comply with the Stipulation and Revised Pretrial Scheduling Order filed by the parties on February 16, 2010, the parties have met and conferred repeatedly in an effort to narrow the scope of discovery to certain categories of documents; WHEREAS, review and production of these categories of documents is hampered by the fact that the documents contain confidential financial and personal customer information, which counsel must closely review and redact to ensure that the individuals' rights to financial and personal privacy are not invaded and that Defendants comply with regulatory requirements to keep such data confidential and safe; WHEREAS, Defendants have reviewed and produced approximately 24,000 pages of documents as of the date of this Stipulation and must review no fewer than approximately 100,000 to 200,000 additional pages for production; WHEREAS, significant class-based discovery remains to be completed, including, inter alia, the anticipated supplementation of Defendants' discovery responses as well as additional depositions of certain of Defendants' witnesses, which cannot be taken until such time as additional key documents are reviewed and produced by Defendants and subsequently reviewed by Plaintiffs; WHEREAS, as a result of the various issues articulated above the dates set forth in the current case management schedule cannot reasonably be met by the parties despite their diligent efforts; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is currently due to be filed on or before June 25, 2010; WHEREAS, Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification is currently due to be filed by July 26, 2010; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Class Certification is currently due to be filed by August 25, 2010; WHEREAS, the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is currently scheduled
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

2.

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ]

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

for September 17, 2010 or another date to be set by the Court; WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and believe that an approximate 120-day extension of the above dates as set forth in the current scheduling Order entered on February 17, 2010 is reasonable and necessary to provide the parties with the time necessary to conduct adequate class discovery prior to briefing class certification; WHEREFORE, IT IS NOW HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 shall be filed by

October 18, 2010; 2. 3. 18, 2010; Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by November 18, 2010; Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Class Certification shall be filed by December December 17, 2010;

4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be conducted on 21 January 18, 2010 or such other date as ordered by the Court; and 5. Within fifteen (15) days of a ruling by the Court regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for

Class Certification, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly submit to the Court a status report regarding their plans for participation in a Court-mandated ADR program and address any other outstanding issues including how much, if any, additional discovery is required; and 6. This Stipulation and Order is subject to revocation and modification by order of the

Court, upon written stipulation of the parties, or upon motion and reasonable notice. SO STIPULATED: DATED: June 18, 2010 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

BY ROBERT W. BIELA Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marcelo Altamirano and Jackey Wilson II

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

3.

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ]

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

DATED: June 18, 2010

Littler Mendelson, P.C.

BY MICHELLE R. BARRETT Attorneys for Defendants HSBC Finance Corporation, Beneficial Company, LLC

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. June 21, 2010 DATED: __________________________ THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

4.

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BY 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Firmwide:95989627.1 023404.1063

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE Pursuant to the Court's General Order 45, Section 10(B), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing declaration is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. Executed this 18th day of June, 2010, in San Francisco, California.

MICHELLE R. BARRETT Attorneys for Defendants HSBC Finance Corporation, Beneficial Company, LLC

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ]