Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation et al

Filing 261

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong (denying 245 Motion to Stay ). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5

OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7 ALFRED T. GIULIANO, Chapter 7

Trustee of the Ritz Estate; CPM
8 ELECTRONICS INC.; E.S.E.
ELECTRONICS, INC.; and MFLASH, INC.,
9 on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated,

Case No: C 10-02787 SBA
ORDER
Docket 245

10

Plaintiffs,
11

vs.
12

SANDISK CORPORATION,
13

Defendant.
14
15

Plaintiffs bring the instant putative class action against SanDisk Corporation

16

(“SanDisk”), alleging claims for relief under § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (“Sherman

17

Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2. The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to

18

stay discovery and other case deadlines pending resolution of their motion for class

19

certification. SanDisk opposes the motion. Having read and considered the papers filed in

20

connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’

21

motion, for the reasons stated below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable

22

for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

23

I.

24

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move for an order staying merits-based discovery and other case deadlines

25

established by the Court1 until 60 days after the Court resolves their motion for class

26

certification, or, in the alternative, an order extending case deadlines until 60 days after the

27
1

28

Plaintiffs move to extend all pretrial deadlines, except the deadline for joinder of
parties and the deadline to amend the pleadings.

1

Court resolves their motion for class certification. The fact discovery deadline is

2

November 14, 2014, while the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is

3

scheduled for December 1, 2014. In light of the deadlines established by the Court in the

4

Pretrial Scheduling Order (“Scheduling Order”) and the relief requested by Plaintiffs, the

5

Court views Plaintiffs’ motion as a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. Indeed, if the

6

stay requested by Plaintiffs is granted, the pretrial deadlines will be modified. As such, the

7

Court finds that Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the instant motion.

8
9

Rule 16 provides that deadlines established in a case management order may “be
modified only for good cause[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’

10

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v.

11

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Coleman v. Quaker Oats

12

Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). “The district court may modify the pretrial

13

schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

14

extension.’ ” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Where the moving party has not been diligent, the

15

inquiry ends and the motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d

16

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence

17

and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

18

In the instant motion, Plaintiffs contend that an extension of the pretrial deadlines is

19

warranted because merits discovery and other pretrial work might be unnecessary and a

20

waste of resources if the Court denies their motion for class certification given that the

21

Plaintiffs’ individual claims “may not justify proceeding with this litigation.” Further,

22

Plaintiffs argue that an extension of the pretrial deadlines is warranted because certain

23

merits discovery and other pretrial work might be unnecessary if the Court certifies a class

24

with fewer members than their proposed class or alters the “contours” of their proposed

25

class. According to Plaintiffs, such a ruling could “potentially” affect the issues and proof

26

they must establish. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed

27

to show good cause to modify the Scheduling Order.

28
-2-

1

On October 18, 2013, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing various

2

pretrial deadlines. Specifically, the Court established September 16, 2014 as the deadline

3

to complete fact discovery.2 In doing so, the Court allocated almost a year for the parties to

4

complete fact discovery, which was in addition to the nearly ten months the parties had to

5

conduct fact discovery following the mandate issued by the Federal Circuit on December

6

31, 2012.3 Based on the parties’ joint request, the fact discovery deadline was extended to

7

November 14, 2014. Now, less than six weeks before the fact discovery deadline, Plaintiffs

8

request an extension of this deadline and other pretrial deadlines to “potentially” avoid the

9

expenditure of unnecessary costs, including costs associated with merits-based discovery.

10

However, Plaintiffs have not argued, let alone shown, that they cannot meet the fact

11

discovery deadline or any other pretrial deadline despite the exercise of reasonable

12

diligence. In their moving papers, Plaintiffs represent that they intend to conduct numerous

13

depositions and that they may conduct additional document discovery related to the merits.

14

In response, SanDisk asserts that fact discovery is complete except for a “handful” of

15

depositions that can “easily and efficiently” be completed by the discovery deadline. In

16

reply, Plaintiffs provide evidence showing that the parties have each recently noticed four

17

depositions. Plaintiffs, however, did not identify any other discovery that they intend to

18

conduct before the discovery deadline. Nor do they contend that the recently noticed

19
2

Discovery was not bifurcated in this case, with class discovery occurring first
followed by discovery on the merits. As SanDisk points out, Plaintiffs have consistently
21 taken the position that class and merits discovery should not be bifurcated. Indeed, on
September 3, 2010 and again on February 20, 2013, Plaintiff Ritz Camera & Image, LLC
22 represented to the Court that bifurcation of discovery would be inefficient and would
prevent discovery needed to meet class certification prerequisites.
20

23
3

24
25
26
27
28

As the parties are well aware, this case was filed in 2010 and assigned to the
Honorable Jeremy Fogel. In December 2010, Judge Fogel issued an order staying all
discovery, including initial disclosures, pending a decision on Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. In February 2011, Judge Fogel granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
motion to dismiss. In September 2011, Judge Fogel granted Defendants’ request to certify
his order for interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit. In addition, Judge Fogel granted
Defendants’ request to stay discovery pending resolution of the appeal. The case was
subsequently reassigned to the undersigned and administratively closed in October 2011
pending SanDisk’s appeal. In November 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Fogel’s
order. The mandate issued on December 31, 2012.
-3-

1

depositions cannot be completed by the discovery deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ have

2

not shown good cause to modify the Scheduling Order.

3

Finally, the Court rejects Plaintiffs contention that a stay (i.e., an extension) of the

4

pretrial deadlines is appropriate because it will promote judicial economy4 and efficiency,

5

avoid unnecessary costs, and not cause any prejudice to SanDisk. Even assuming for the

6

sake of discussion that these factors are relevant to determining whether the Scheduling

7

Order should be modified, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that an extension of the

8

pretrial deadlines will promote judicial economy or efficiency, or avoid unnecessary costs.

9

Plaintiffs’ arguments in this regard are predicated on future events that may not materialize,

10

including the Court’s denial of their motion for class certification. Further, Plaintiffs have

11

not shown that the delay which would result from the relief they seek would not prejudice

12

SanDisk. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Unnecessary

13

delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will

14

become stale.”); Southwest Marine Inc. v. Danzig, 217 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000)

15

(“Unreasonable delay is the foundation upon which a court may presume prejudice.”).

16

II.

CONCLUSION

17

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

18

1.

19

Plaintiffs’ motion to stay discovery and other case deadlines pending

resolution of their motion for class certification is DENIED.

20

2.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

This Order terminates Docket 245.

Dated: November 3, 2014

23

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

24
25
26
4

According to Plaintiffs, an extension of the fact discovery deadline will promote
judicial economy by avoiding “potential” motion practice related to merits-based discovery
28 disputes.
27

-4-