Roling v. E*Trade Securities LLC

Filing 88

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Extend Discovery Deadlines. Discovery due by 1/3/2012. Motions due by 2/17/2012. Motion Hearing set for 5/4/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/18/2011. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)

1
2
3
4

Sean Reis (SBN 184044)
Edelson McGuire, LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Rafey S. Balabanian (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Steven L. Lezell (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Ari J. Scharg (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Edelson McGuire, LLC
350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

JOSEPH ROLING and ALEXANDER
LANDVATER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

The Honorable Edward M. Chen

17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 3:10-cv-00488-EMC

E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES

1

Plaintiffs Joseph Roling and Alexander Landvater (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and

2

Defendant E*TRADE Securities, LLC (“E*TRADE”) (Plaintiffs and E*TRADE are collectively

3

referred to as the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and L.R. 7-12, hereby stipulate and

4

agree to extend the class discovery deadline by sixty (60) days, and modify the Discovery Plan.

5

(Dkt. No. 69.) In support of their Stipulation, the Parties state as follows:

6
7

1.

lawsuit against E*Trade Securities LLC on February 3, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.)

8
9
10

Plaintiffs Joseph Roling and Alexander Landvater filed this putative class action

2.

As set forth in the Revised Discovery Plan, which was approved by the Court on

February 2, 2011, discovery in this matter has been bifurcated into class and merits phases, with
class discovery closing on November 1, 2011. (Dkt. No. 69.)

11

3.

Good cause exists to extend the class discovery period by sixty (60) days. This

12

case concerns a putative class that is potentially comprised of millions customers. As such, the

13

Parties have exchanged thousands of documents relating to customer contracts and agreements

14

dating back to 2001, and are still in the process of producing relevant documents. Additionally,

15

several depositions still need to be taken, and Plaintiffs just received on Friday, October 14, firm

16

dates for certain Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses of E*Trade.

17

4.

Extending the discovery cut-off date by sixty (60) days will allow the Parties to

18

finish taking depositions, and also to issue any follow up discovery that may be necessary after

19

the depositions have been taken.

20

5.

The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of

21

litigation.” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The

22

court may modify the discovery deadline only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic,

23

302 F.3d at 1087. Good cause to extend a deadline exists when the deadline “cannot reasonably

24

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P 16 Advisory

25

Comm. Notes (1983 Am.); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.

26

1992).

27
28

6.

The Parties have been diligently engaged in discovery in this matter, and the

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

2

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00488-EMC

1

requested extension will not prejudice either party. The Parties do not anticipate any future

2

extensions or modification of the Discovery Plan currently in place.

3

7.

4

purposes of delay.

5

This Stipulation, and the requested extension sought herein, is not brought for the

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby, STIPULATE and AGREE, subject to Court

6

approval, that the Court extend the class discovery deadline by sixty (60) days, and modify the

7

Discovery Plan as follows:

8

a.

January 3, 2012

b.

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion
for Class Certification:

February 17, 2012

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification:

March 30, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Reply In Support of their
Motion for Class Certification:

April 20, 2012

e.

Hearing on the Motion for Class Certification:

May 4, 2012

f.

Second Phase Discovery Cutoff:

August 7, 2012 or 3 months
following ruling on Class Cert.,
whichever is later

g.

9

First Phase Discovery Cutoff:

Deadline for Dispositive Motions:

October 8, 2012 or 60 days
following close of merits
discovery, whichever is later

10
11

c.

12
d.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

//
//
//
//
//
//
//
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

3

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00488-EMC

1

Respectfully submitted,

2
3

Dated: October 18, 2011

4

By:/s/ Rafey S. Balabanian
One of Plaintiffs’ attorneys

5
6

Rafey S. Balabanian (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Edelson McGuire, LLC
350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11

JOSEPH ROLING and ALEXANDER
LANDVATER, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals,

Dated: October 18, 2011

12

E*TRADE SECURITIES, LLC,
By:/s/ Whitty Somvichian
Whitty Somvichian(194463)
Cooley LLP
101 California Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-5800
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
14
15
16

Douglas P. Lobel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
11951 Freedom Drive
Reston, Virginia 20190
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21

23

Dated: 10/18/2011

NO

RT

27
4

A

H

ER

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

. Chen

dward M

Judge E

FO

26

LI

25

R NIA

______________________________________
HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24

28

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

UNIT
ED

S

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

RT
U
O

22

N

C
F
D I S T CI C T O. 3:10-CV-00488-EMC
R ASE NO