Spears et al v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al

Filing 350

Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Whyte on 11/6/2013. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13

FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY
SCHOLL, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,

SCHEDULING ORDER
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17

Case No. C-08-00868-RMW

v.
FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT (a/k/a
eAppraiseIt, LLC), a Delaware limited liability
company,
Defendant.

18
19

On October 18, 2013, the court held a case management conference in response to a request

20

by plaintiff Felton Spears. See Dkt. No. 334. The primary issue discussed at the conference was

21

whether to extend discovery to allow Spears to complete discovery from Chase, a third party to the

22

lawsuit. 1 Spears requested a 90-day extension of fact discovery and all other deadlines to allow

23

Chase to complete production of a sample of 450 funded loan files. 2 He claims that this extension is

24

necessary and appropriate because Chase has been unable to produce the requested discovery in

25

time to meet the October 15, 2013 close of fact discovery deadline. Defendant EA opposes this

26
1

27
28

At issue in the lawsuit is defendant First American eAppraiseIT’s appraisals for Washington
Mutual, which JP Morgan Chase acquired.
2
Spears proposes that the additional discovery to confirm class member status of the remaining
230,000 properties EA appraised for WaMu can continue as it is not needed until the claims process
or the second stage of the trial after liability issues are determined.
Case No. C-08-00868-RMW
SW

-1-

1

proposal arguing that Spears has had plenty of time to complete discovery and the reason he has not

2

timely completed discovery is his own lack of diligence in promptly seeking this information from

3

Chase.

4

The court finds some merit in both arguments. The court’s deadlines are necessary for the

5

fair and efficient resolution of disputes and the court does not change them lightly. Nevertheless,

6

the court is sympathetic to Spears’ difficulty in compelling a third party to produce a large volume

7

of critical documents that are apparently not readily available. Therefore, the court will extend the

8

deadline as to the discovery from Chase until December 22, 2013, and extend some other dates to

9

insure that defendant is not unfairly limited in its time to prepare its defense in response to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

additional analysis by plaintiffs of files produced by Chase. Spears will have to make his case with

11

whatever information he can obtain by December 22, 2013.

12

Fact discovery remains closed as to all other matters except those, which the parties have

13

previously agreed could extend beyond the October 15, 2013 deadline. 3 The court also recognizes

14

that there are a number of motions to compel before the magistrate and leaves those issues to the

15

magistrate’s sound discretion to resolve and compel the discovery sought by the motions, if

16

appropriate.

17

Defendant argues that the court should require a noticed motion before considering

18

plaintiffs’ request for a modification of the last stipulated scheduling order. The court is satisfied

19

that it has enough information justifying the amendment set forth below without requiring additional

20

paperwork. However, the court does agree with defendant that plaintiff must file a noticed motion

21

before the court will consider any request to “bi-furcate [sic] the issues for trial such that liability

22

issues be tried by the court at a date set by the court at this time, and that the issues related to

23

statutory damages and class membership for the Class at large . . .be addressed at a later time if

24

Plaintiffs are successful in establishing liability.” Dkt. No. 342 at 21.

25
26
27
3

28

EA stated in the case management statement that it did not oppose Spears’ request for a limited
extension of fact discovery for the deposition of Cheryl Feltgen. The parties may also complete any
other limited discovery that they have agreed could be completed after the deadline.

Case No. C-08-00868-RMW
SW

-2-

1

Accordingly, the court resets the deadlines in this case as follows:

2
3
4

Event
Merits Discovery Cutoff

Prior Deadline per August
30, 2013 Stipulation
October 15, 2013

New Deadline
October 15, 2013 (except for
discovery from Chase)

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

December 22, 2013
(discovery from Chase)
Expert Reports
November 15, 2013
January 31, 2014
Supplemental and Rebuttal
April 14, 2014
May 14, 2014 (for plaintiffs)
Expert Reports
June 6, 2014 (for defendant)
Expert Discovery Cut-Off
Unclear as to whether the date June 30, 2014
(including any discovery
set by the August 30, 2013
relating to or arising from
stipulation is June 30, 2014 or
plaintiff’s’ aggregate inflation whether that is the mediation
analysis)
date
Mediation
See above
July 16, 2014
Dispositive Motion Hearing
July 18, 2014
July 25, 2014
Cut-Off
Other Motion Hearing CutAugust 15, 2014
August 22, 2014
Off (other than motions in
limine)
Pretrial Conference (hearing
October 6, 2014
October 9, 2014
on motions in limine, agreed
jury instructions and verdict
forms, proposed voir dire
questions)
Pretrial Briefs
October 30, 2014
October 30, 2014
Trial Date
November 24, 2014
November 24, 2014

19
20
21
22
23
Dated: November 6, 2013

_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
Case No. C-08-00868-RMW
SW

-3-