Whalen v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 99

ORDER RESETTING CMC to 8/14/14 at 10:30. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/9/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Steve W. Berman, (pro hac vice)
Catherine Y.N. Gannon (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jeff D. Friedman (CSB No. 173886)
Shana E. Scarlett (CSB No. 217895)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel
13
14

[Additional Counsel listed on Signature Page]

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19
20
21

IN RE

No. 13-cv-3072-EMC

MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER
LITIGATION.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT ; ORDER

22

Date: June 12, 2014
Time: 10:30 A.M.
Courtroom: 5, 17th Floor
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

23
24
25
26
27
28
010388-11 694583 V1

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Entry (Dkt. No. 87) and the Standing Order for all Judges of

3

the Northern District of California, counsel for the parties respectfully submit this Updated Joint

4

Case Management Statement. This is the fourth Case Management Statement; three previous

5

statements were filed with the Court on October 3, 2013 (Dkt. No. 33); January 16, 2014 (Dkt. No.

6

58); and April 17, 2014 (Dkt. No. 82). This Updated Joint Case Management Statement is intended

7

to: update the Court on the status of the pleadings and discovery; request an extension of time for

8

Ford to file its Answer; and, request a sixty (60) day postponement of the June 12, 2014 Court

9

Management Conference.

10
11

II.
A.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Motions

12

On January 13, 2014, Ford filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 56). Plaintiffs filed a

13

Memorandum in Opposition on February 21, 2014 (Dkt. No. 69) and Ford filed its Reply on March

14

14, 2014 (Dkt. No. 72). The Court heard oral argument on April 25, 2014. On May 30, 2014 this

15

Court rendered a decision granting in part and denying in part Ford’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No.

16

97).

17

B.

18

Amendment of Pleadings
Plaintiffs will not amend the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and will proceed based on

19

the surviving claims. Thus, the current deadline to file an Answer to the FAC is June 13, 2014. Ford

20

anticipates that due to the length of the FAC it will be in a position to file an Answer by July 14,

21

2014. Ford therefore requests that the Court grant an extension of thirty (30) days from the current

22

deadline. Plaintiffs consent to Ford’s request for an extension.

23
24

III.

STATUS OF DISCOVERY

As previously reported (see Dkt. No. 82), the parties participated in a Rule 26(f) conference

25

and exchanged their initial disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(a). Plaintiffs served Ford with their First

26

Set of Requests for Production of Documents on December 3, 2013 and Ford served its Responses

27

and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, with Plaintiffs’

28

agreement, on January 17, 2014.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-1-

1

Since April 17, 2014, the parties have agreed upon the format of production, including

2

Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) protocols. The parties have also negotiated a general

3

protective order, which this Court ordered on May 16, 2014 (Dkt. No. 96). The parties are currently

4

negotiating a second protective order that would pertain to highly confidential information, such as

5

source code data.

6
7

Over the coming months, Ford anticipates making regular productions around every two
weeks. Ford has so far made the following productions:
•

Documents pertaining to the named Plaintiffs’ vehicles and
warranty history (04/03/2014);

•

Showroom brochures, owners’ manuals, and warranty guides
(04/15/2014);

•

Additional showroom brochures, owners’ manuals, and
warranty guides, as well as print/video advertising (5/22/2014);

•

Special Service Messages and Technical Service Bulletins
(5/27/2014);

•

8

Email production of approximately 95,000 pages for Document
Custodian J. Bragg (5/30/2014).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

On February 26, 2014, Plaintiffs served Ford with a Second Set of Requests for Production of
Documents. On April 1, 2014 Ford served its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Requests for Production of Documents. Ford objected to this discovery primarily on the grounds of
relevance and burdensomeness because it sought documents concerning Ford’s communications and
relationships with other entities regarding future technology systems that are not installed in the
current production of Ford or Lincoln vehicles. The parties have met and conferred on multiple
occasions regarding Ford’s responses to the Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
On May 27, 2014, Ford communicated that, while it intends to stand on its objections of relevancy
and burden, its search efforts for relevant information are on-going and, to the extent relevant
information is identified, it will so advise Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs continue to believe that the Second
Set of Requests for Production of Documents seeks relevant documents the collection and production

27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-2-

1

of which would impose no unusual burden upon Ford. While the parties’ efforts to resolve this

2

dispute amicably are on-going, motion practice may be required to resolve this dispute.

3

On December 31, 2013, Ford served Plaintiffs with its First Set of Interrogatories and

4

Requests for Production of Documents, to which Plaintiffs responded, with Ford’s agreement, on

5

March 17, 2014. Several plaintiffs provided only objections to Ford’s interrogatories and no

6

plaintiffs have produced any documents. Ford raised these and other issues with Plaintiffs’

7

responses in a letter on April 16, about which Plaintiffs have now agreed to Meet and Confer.

8
9
10

The parties will continue to work cooperatively to ensure the efficient and timely exchange of
documents and do not believe there are any disputes that require the Court’s assistance at this time.
IV.

POSTPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11

Given the productive developments outlined in Section III of this Updated Joint Case

12

Management Statement, all parties believe that additional time to review the ongoing mutual

13

productions will better position them to make meaningful case management scheduling

14

recommendations. In addition, Ford’s lead counsel have scheduling constraints including, for Mr.

15

Edwards, an impending trial in another matter, that would make a continuance of the June 12, 2014

16

conference preferable. As such, all parties request postponing the Case Management Conference by

17

sixty (60) days, to August 12, 2014 on the grounds of prematurity and defense counsel’s limited

18

availability at the scheduled time. All parties anticipate that they will be able to provide the Court

19

with a full discovery and trial schedule by August 2014.

20

DATED: June 5, 2014

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

21
By

/s/ Steve W. Berman
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
Catherine Y.N. Gannon (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-3-

Jeff D. Friedman (173886)
Shana E. Scarlett (217895)
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5
6

Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice)
Kyle McGee (pro hac vice)
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11

Roland Tellis (186269)
Mark Pifko (228412)
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17

Joseph G. Sauder (pro hac vice)
Matthew D. Schelkopf (pro hac vice)
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel

24

Randall W. Edwards (179053)
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-4-

Janet. L. Conigliaro (pro hac vice)
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, Michigan 48243
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5

Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-5-

1

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)

2

I, Steve W. Berman, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to

3

file the foregoing document. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that all

4

signatories have concurred in this filing.

5
Dated: June 5, 2014
6
/s/ Steve W. Berman
Steve W. Berman

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-6-

1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

I hereby certify the on June 5, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document using the
CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the email addresses registered in the
CM/ECF system, as denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have
caused to be mailed a paper copy of the foregoing document via the United States Postal Service to
the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List generated by the CM/ECF system.
Dated: June 5, 2014
/s/ Steve W. Berman
Steve W. Berman

9
10
11

RT
U
O

NO

RT

19

R NIA

. Chen

dward M

Judge E

ER

H

18

ERED
O ORD D
IT IS S
DIFIE
AS MO

FO

17

15

LI

16

UNIT
ED

14

A

13

IT IS SO ORDERED that the CMC is reset from 6/12/14 to 8/14/14 at 10:30 a.m.
An updated joint CMC statement shall be filed by 8/7/14.
_______________________
Edward M. Chen
S DISTRICT
TE
C
U.S. District Judge
TA

S

12

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No.: 13-cv-3072-EMC

010388-11 694583 V1

-7-