Mauder and Alice Chao et al v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 49 Motion to Expedite (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2011)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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,
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SET A PHASED DISCOVERY
10 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant Aurora Loan Services,
LLC’s (“Aurora”) administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11 to set a phased
discovery schedule in this putative class action. Dkt. 49. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
Dkt. 52. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and
being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, for the reasons stated below.
In its motion, Aurora requests that this Court issue an order bifurcating discovery
into two phases: (1) class certification discovery; and (2) merits discovery thereafter.
Aurora claims that bifurcation “will allow the parties and the Court to move more
efficiently to the early determination of class certification as required by the Federal
The Court has broad discretion to determine how to structure discovery in a complex
case. See Gray v. Winthrop Corporation, 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Here, the
Court concludes that Aurora has failed to demonstrate that bifurcating discovery into two
phases is appropriate. Contrary to Aurora’s contention, the Court is not convinced that
bifurcating discovery will promote judicial economy and the efficient resolution of this
case. The Court is not persuaded, as Aurora claims, that the test for determining whether
discovery is certification-based or merits-based would be “straightforward and easy to
administer,” and that phased discovery would likely have the effect of “reducing” the
number of discovery disputes.
In fact, the Court finds that an order bifurcating discovery would be unworkable
because the certification-based evidence and merits-based evidence in this case is
intertwined, and inefficient because bifurcation would require ongoing supervision of
discovery, including the resolution of disputes concerning whether discovery is
certification-based or merits-based. In short, because Aurora failed to demonstrate that its
proposal would save judicial resources and facilitate the expeditious resolution of this case,
Aurora’s request for a phased discovery schedule is DENIED. See Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 41.
The motion for class certification will be briefed and heard in accordance with the schedule
previously established by the Court. See Dkt. 46.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2011
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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?