Pimental v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 60

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Jessica Franklin, Google, Inc., Nicole Pimental, Slide, Inc.. (Dore, Christopher) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

SEAN P. REIS - SBN 184004
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BOBBIE J. WILSON - SBN 148317
JOSHUA A. REITEN - SBN 238985
PERKINS COIE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4024
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

10

Attorneys for Defendants

11

[Additional counsel appearing on signature page.]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

OAKLAND DIVISION

15
16

NICOLE PIMENTAL and JESSICA
FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, and
SLIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Case No. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Judge: Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Action filed: May 27, 2011

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR

1

At the February 9, 2012 Case Management Conference, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Nicole

2

Pimental and Jessica Franklin, and Defendants Google Inc. and Slide, Inc. (collectively, the

3

“Parties”) to “set up a comprehensive proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f),

4

and resolve any outstanding discovery issues regarding discovery requests already propounded.”

5

(Dkt. No. 56.) Accordingly, the Parties hereby submit the following Further Joint Case

6

Management Statement, which addresses these issues.

7

1.

Date case was filed: This is a consolidated action. Initially, Pimental v. Google,

8

Inc., Slide, Inc. (11-cv-02585-SBA) was filed on May 27, 2011. Franklin v. Google,

9

Inc., Slide, Inc. (11-cv-03333-SBA) was then filed on July 7, 2011. Thereafter,

10

Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint now before this Court on September 14,

11

2011. (Pimental, et al. v. Google Inc., Slide, Inc. (11-cv-02585-YGR)).

12

2.

List of parties:

13

a.

Plaintiffs: Nicole Pimental, Jessica Franklin

14

b.

Defendants: Google Inc., Slide, Inc.

15

3.

List of current deadlines: The current deadlines and relevant dates are as follows:

16

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: June 22, 2012

17

DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS (retained/non-retained):

18

a.

Opening: June 15, 2012

19

b.

Rebuttal: June 29, 2012

20

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: August 17, 2012

21

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE with a U.S. Magistrate Judge:
September 4, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS TO BE HEARD BY: October 30, 2012
PRETRIAL STATEMENTS: January 18, 2013
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: February 1, 2013
TRIAL DATE: February 19, 2013 (Jury Trial)

27
28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR

1

4.

List of all pending motions: None.

2

5.

Description of events underlying claim: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants formerly

3

operated a service known as “Disco,” which allowed consumers to engage in “group

4

text messaging” (i.e., allowing one text message to be sent to numerous people

5

simultaneously, and allowing other group members to interact with the entire group

6

through a single message). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants send their own text

7

messages, promoting their service and mobile application, to Disco group members

8

without receiving consent to do so, in direct violation of the Telephone Consumer

9

Protection Act (47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq.). Plaintiffs specifically allege that they

10

were added to Disco groups without permission and thereafter received numerous

11

unwanted text messages, including promotional text messages from Defendants.

12

Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that after they attempted to be removed from the Disco

13

groups, they continued to receive unwanted text messages.

14

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ allegations and deny liability on Plaintiffs’

15
16

claim.
6.

Summary of all claims: Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint alleges a single cause of

17

action for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et

18

seq.).

19
20

7.

List and description of relief sought: Plaintiffs seeks the following relief:
a.

An order certifying this action as a Class Action and designating Plaintiffs
and their counsel as representatives of the Class;

22

b.

Injunctive relief for the Class on Count I;

23

c.

Actual damages, or statutory damages in the amount of $500 per violation
under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), whichever is greater, with a possible trebling
under § 227(b)(3)(C);

25

d.

An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for Plaintiffs and their
counsel; and,

26

e.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

21

24

27
28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR

1

8.

Status of discovery:

2

Joint Statement: The Parties conducted a Rule 26(f) meet and confer in August 2011,

3

and again on October 5, 2011. Defendants filed an Administrative Motion to Stay

4

Discovery on October 26, 2011, (Dkt. 34), on the grounds that discovery in this case

5

should be temporarily stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

6

Plaintiffs served discovery on Defendant Google on October 27, 2011 in the form of

7

interrogatories and requests to produce documents. Google served its responses to

8

that discovery on December 23, 2011. Plaintiffs requested, and the Parties held, a

9

meet and confer regarding Defendant’s discovery responses on December 29, 2011.

10

At the February 9, 2012 case management conference, the Court granted

11

Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to

12

dismiss. (Dkt. No. 56.) Following the case management conference, the Parties again

13

met and conferred regarding their outstanding discovery disputes and came to an

14

agreement on contested issues. On March 2, 2012, the Court denied Defendants’

15

motion to dismiss and lifted the discovery stay. (Dkt. No. 59.) The Parties anticipate

16

filing a proposed stipulated protective order in the coming days.

17

Accordingly, the Parties propose a discovery schedule as detailed in the chart

18

below. The Parties agree that discovery will not be bifurcated and both class and

19

merits discovery shall occur simultaneously.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Deadline
Fact discovery to close
Experts to be disclosed
Initial expert reports to be disclosed
Rebuttal experts to be disclosed
Rebuttal expert reports to be disclosed
Expert discovery to close
Plaintiffs to file class certification motion
Defendants to file opposition to class
certification
Plaintiffs to file reply in support of class
certification motion
Dispositive motions to be heard by
Pretrial statements

Proposed Date
August 10, 2012
August 3, 2012
August 24, 2012
August 31, 2012
September 14, 2012
October 12, 2012
June 29, 2012
July 27, 2012
August 10, 2012
December 10, 2012
February 11, 2013

28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR

Deadline
Pretrial conference
Trial (3-5 days)

1
2

9.

3

Proposed Date
February 25, 2013
March 11, 2013

Procedural history of case: An initial case management conference was held on
September 8, 2011, a second case management hearing was held on October 12,

4

2011, and a third case management conference was held on February 9, 2012.

5

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 14, 2011. The Court denied

6

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012 without hearing. (Dkt. No. 59.)

7
10.

8

There is no case management conference set at this time. The Parties agree that a
case management conference is not needed at this time.

9

Respectfully Submitted,

10
11

Dated: March 12, 2012

EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC

12
13

/s/ Christopher L. Dore
Christopher L. Dore

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

By:

Dated: March 12, 2012

PERKINS COIE LLP

16
By:

17
18

/s/ Bobbie J. Wilson
Bobbie J. Wilson

Attorneys for Defendants

19

23

SEAN P. REIS - SBN 184004
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
//

24

//

BOBBIE J. WILSON
JOSHUA A. REITEN
PERKINS COIE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center
24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4024
[phone]
[e-mail]
//

25

//

//

26

//

//

27

//

//

20
21
22

28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

RAFEY S. BALABANIAN (Pro Hac Vice)
CHRISTOPHER L. DORE (Pro Hac Vice)
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DEBRA R. BERNARD (Pro Hac Vice)
PERKINS COIE LLP
131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, Illinois 60603
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

SCOTT D. OWENS (Pro Hac Vice)
2000 East Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 106
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
JORDAN L. LURIE
JOEL E ELKINS
WEISS & LURIE
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

15

STEFAN COLEMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
STEFAN COLEMAN, ESQ.
1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1
Lakewood, New Jersey 08701
Telephone: [phone]

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2
3

I, Christopher L. Dore, an attorney, hereby certify that on March 12, 2012, I served the
above and foregoing Further Joint Case Management Statement, by causing true and accurate
copies of such paper to be filed and transmitted to all parties and their counsel of record via the
Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system, on this the 12th day of March, 2012.

4
/s/ Christopher L. Dore

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FURTHER JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-02585-YGR