Mauder and Alice Chao et al v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 49 Motion to Expedite (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5

MAUDER and ALICE CHAO;

Case No: C 10-03383 SBA

6 DEOGENESO and GLORINA PALUGOD;

and MARITZA PINEL, on behalf of
7 themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

8
9

vs.

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SET A PHASED DISCOVERY
SCHEDULE
Dkt. 49.

10 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

11
12
13

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant Aurora Loan Services,

14

LLC’s (“Aurora”) administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11 to set a phased

15

discovery schedule in this putative class action. Dkt. 49. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

16

Dkt. 52. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and

17

being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, for the reasons stated below.

18

In its motion, Aurora requests that this Court issue an order bifurcating discovery

19

into two phases: (1) class certification discovery; and (2) merits discovery thereafter.

20

Aurora claims that bifurcation “will allow the parties and the Court to move more

21

efficiently to the early determination of class certification as required by the Federal

22

Rules.”

23

The Court has broad discretion to determine how to structure discovery in a complex

24

case. See Gray v. Winthrop Corporation, 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Here, the

25

Court concludes that Aurora has failed to demonstrate that bifurcating discovery into two

26

phases is appropriate. Contrary to Aurora’s contention, the Court is not convinced that

27

bifurcating discovery will promote judicial economy and the efficient resolution of this

28

case. The Court is not persuaded, as Aurora claims, that the test for determining whether

1

discovery is certification-based or merits-based would be “straightforward and easy to

2

administer,” and that phased discovery would likely have the effect of “reducing” the

3

number of discovery disputes.

4

In fact, the Court finds that an order bifurcating discovery would be unworkable

5

because the certification-based evidence and merits-based evidence in this case is

6

intertwined, and inefficient because bifurcation would require ongoing supervision of

7

discovery, including the resolution of disputes concerning whether discovery is

8

certification-based or merits-based. In short, because Aurora failed to demonstrate that its

9

proposal would save judicial resources and facilitate the expeditious resolution of this case,

10

Aurora’s request for a phased discovery schedule is DENIED. See Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 41.

11

The motion for class certification will be briefed and heard in accordance with the schedule

12

previously established by the Court. See Dkt. 46.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2011

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-