Bronson et al v. Johnson & Johnson Inc. et al

Filing 92

ORDER re 88 Joint Case Management Statement filed by Alvin Kupperman, Michael Fishman, Barbara Bronson. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on October 17, 2014. (jcslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BARBARA BRONSON, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-04184-CRB (JCS)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE CLASS CERTIFICATION
BRIEFING AND MEDIATION

9
10

JOHNSON & JOHNSON INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 88

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The parties appeared before the Court for a Case Management Conference on October 10,

13

2014 at 9:30 a.m. The parties prepared and filed a Joint Case Management Statement in advance

14

of the hearing, Dkt. No. 88 (“Statement”), in which they raised three issues for decision by the

15

Court: (1) class certification scheduling; (2) discovery cost-shifting; and (3) ADR. Good cause

16

appearing, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court rules as follows.

17

1. Class Certification Scheduling

18

The Court orders the following schedule for class certification briefing:
Event
Date
Class Certification Discovery cut-off
December 15, 2014
Plaintiffs‟ Disclosure of Class Certification Experts January 26, 2015
(and corresponding Reports)
Defendants‟ Disclosure of Class Certification
March 26, 2015
Experts (and corresponding Reports)
Deposition of Plaintiff‟s Class Certification Experts To be determined by the parties (between
January 27 and March 25, 2015)
Deposition of Defendant‟s Class Certification
To be determined by the parties (between
Experts
March 27 and May 25, 2015)
Disclosure of Rebuttal Class Certification Experts
March 26, 2015
(and corresponding Reports)
Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Class Certification
January 26, 2015
Defendants‟ Opposition to Motion for Class
March 26, 2015
Certification
Plaintiffs‟ Class Certification Reply:
May 26, 2015
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification:
To be set by Judge Breyer

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4

2. Discovery Cost-shifting
Defendant “requests an order that, from this point forward, all costs that McNeil incurs in
responding to Plaintiffs‟ discovery be shared 50/50 by McNeil and Plaintiffs.” Statement at 8.
Defendant argues that “Rule 26(b)(2)(C) authorizes cost-shifting whenever it is disproportionate,
whether or not ESI is at issue, and whether or not the information is „inaccessible.‟” Id. at 9

5
(citation omitted).
6

For the reasons stated on the record, Defendant‟s request is DENIED WITHOUT

7
PREJUDICE.
8
9
10

3. ADR
The parties state that they “are willing to participate in the Court‟s Mediation Program
under Local Rule 6.” Statement at 13. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated on the record, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

parties are ordered to mediation under the Court‟s Mediation Program no later than December 9,
12
2014.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: October 17, 2014.
15
16
17

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2