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)

Download PDF
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

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?