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)

Download PDF
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-

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?