Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 164

ORDER BIFURCATING CLASS AND MERITS DISCOVERY; SCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 140 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, 141 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Joint Case Management Conference statement due 1/5/2009. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/12/2009 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor San Jose before Hon. James Ware. Signed by Judge James Ware on 12/12/2008. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litigation NO. C 07-05152 JW ORDER BIFURCATING CLASS AND MERITS DISCOVERY; SCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE / Presently before the Court are the parties' Proposed Discovery Plans.1 Plaintiffs contend that simultaneous class and merits discovery is appropriate, while Defendant Apple contends that class discovery should precede merits discovery. Discovery in a putative class action is generally limited to certification issues in the precertification stage. Babbitt v. Albertson's Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19091at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 1992) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 359 (1978)). "Discovery on the merits is usually deferred until it is certain that the case will be allowed to proceed as a class action." Id. at *7 (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacqelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177 (1974)). In this case, the Court finds that bifurcation of class and merits discovery is in the best interest of the efficient resolution of this complex antitrust litigation. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to proceed with class discovery and merits discovery is STAYED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Plaintiffs' Proposed Discovery Plan, Docket Item No. 140; Defendant Apple, Inc.'s Proposed Discovery Plan, Docket Item No. 141.)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Further, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and formulate a reasonable class discovery plan. The Court sets a Case Management Conference on January 12, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. On or before January 5, 2009, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement which shall include the parties' proposed class discovery schedule.

Dated: December 12, 2008

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Adrian Frank Davis [e-mail] Alexander H. Schmidt [e-mail] Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer [e-mail] Archis Ashok Parasharami [e-mail] Arthur William Lazear [e-mail] Christopher E Ondeck [e-mail] Christopher S. Yates [e-mail] Damian Rene Fernandez [e-mail] Daniel Allen Sasse [e-mail] Daniel Murray Wall [e-mail] David Eldon Crowe [e-mail] Donald M. Falk [e-mail] Francis M. Gregorek [e-mail] H. Tim Hoffman [e-mail] Jeffrey H. Howard [e-mail] M. Van Smith [e-mail] Marisa C. Livesay [e-mail] Mark Carl Rifkin [e-mail] Max Folkenflik [e-mail] Morgan Matthew Mack [e-mail] Rachele R. Rickert [e-mail] Randall Scott Newman [e-mail] Sadik Harry Huseny [e-mail] Stephen DeNittis [e-mail] Wm. Randolph Smith [e-mail] Dated: December 12, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28