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

Filing 380

STIPULATION AND ORDER 378 Extending Certain Pre-Trial Dates. Expert Discovery cutoff 9/5/2014; Mediation to be Completed by 9/25/2014; Dispositive Motion Hearing cutoff 8/22/2014. [Dkt. Nos. 376, 377 are termed as moot]. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 6/18/14. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

Janet Lindner Spielberg (SBN 221926)
LAW OFFICES OF JANET
LINDNER SPIELBERG
12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
Los Angeles, California 90025
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. (pro hac vice)
FEINSTEIN DOYLE
PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

5
6

CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

7
8
9
10
11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and
) Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)
SIDNEY SCHOLL, on behalf of themselves and )
all others similarly situated,
) STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
) EXTENDING CERTAIN PRE-TRIAL
Plaintiffs,
) DATES
vs.
)
FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT
(a/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC),
a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation and [] Order; CASE NO. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)

1

Plaintiffs Felton A. Spears, Jr. and Sidney Scholl (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant

2

eAppraiseIT, LLC (“EA;” collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of

3

record and pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, enter into the following stipulation for an order

4

extending certain pre-trial dates. This stipulation does not seek modification of the trial date or the

5

date currently scheduled for the pre-trial conference.

6

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

7

of Plaintiffs’ claim under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a), certifying a Class of “All consumers in

8

California and throughout the United States who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from

9

Washington Mutual Bank, FA in connection with appraisals that were obtained through

10

eAppraiseIT.” Dkt. No. 249, p. 12.

11

WHEREAS, per the Court’s November 6, 2013 Order (Dkt. 350) scheduling expert reports,

12

Plaintiffs served EA with experts’ reports from twelve experts on January 31, 2014. Plaintiffs served

13

one supplemental expert report via email to EA’s counsel and made four other supplemental reports

14

available EA via secure server on May 14, 2014. Plaintiffs emailed the remaining supplemental

15

experts to Defendant on May 15, 2014 upon learning that EA had trouble retrieving the reports off

16

the server the prior evening.1

17
18

WHEREAS, EA served no expert reports on January 31, 2014 and submitted six rebuttal
reports on the June 6, 2014 rebuttal report deadline under this Court’s scheduling order.

19

WHEREAS, the parties have made reciprocal expert-related document requests, and EA has

20

advised that it anticipates substantially completing production of expert-related documents within

21

two weeks of submission of its rebuttal reports (i.e., by June 20, 2014).

22

WHEREAS, given the scope of the parties’ expert cases (totaling over eighteen experts,

23

including appraisal practice, appraisal review, appraisal inflation analysis, RESPA compliance and

24

damages experts) and the need for Plaintiffs to analyze the rebuttal reports as well as the expert-

25

related documents being produced thereafter, the parties need more time than is currently included in

26

the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 350) in order to: 1) complete certain expert depositions as

27
28

1

EA intends to move to strike the supplemental reports as improper and untimely supplementation.

Stipulation and [] Order; CASE NO. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)

1

1

described below; and 2) include – if necessary – a discussion of certain of those expert depositions in

2

the parties’ respective opposition and reply briefs in connection with upcoming motions (including,

3

but not limited to, motions for summary judgment and a motion for decertification).

4

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to conduct expert depositions in two phases, such that

5

the expert depositions that are potentially relevant to the upcoming motions for summary judgment

6

and other motion practice are completed by the time the parties’ opposition and reply briefs are due.

7

To minimize the burden on the parties during the briefing phase of these motions, the parties will

8

take only those expert depositions necessary for their opposition briefs prior to the filing of their

9

opposition briefs. Expert depositions necessary for their reply briefs will be taken after opposition

10

briefs are filed and prior to the filing of their reply briefs. All other expert depositions will be taken

11

after the filing of reply briefs, which the parties anticipate will include some twelve appraisal

12

reviewer experts (or fewer to the extent they are deposed earlier). The parties will work to schedule

13

depositions so they occur more than three business days prior to the respective opposition and reply

14

briefing deadlines.

15

WHEREAS, under the current Scheduling Order, expert discovery is now scheduled to close

16

on June 30, 2014 (just over three weeks after the production of Defendants’ rebuttal expert reports),

17

dispositive motions are scheduled to be heard on July 25, 2014, and the “other motion hearing cut-

18

off (other than motions in limine)” is set for August 22, 2014.

19

WHEREAS, the parties respectfully request that: 1) the expert discovery cutoff be extended

20

from June 30, 2014 to September 5, 2014; 2) the dispositive motion hearing cut-off be extended to

21

the same date as the “other motion hearing cut-off (other than motions in limine)”; and that the

22

Parties’ upcoming motions for summary judgment and decertification (and any other motions other

23

than motions in limine) be briefed according to the following briefing schedule, with the

24

understanding that one or more party(ies) may need to extend the time to respond to the motions,

25

which have not yet been filed: moving papers due July 1, 2014; opposition papers due July 25,

26

2014, and reply papers due August 8, 2014. Moreover, the parties have scheduled a mediation with

27

John Leo Wagner on September 17, 2014. Accordingly, in light of these requested changes and the

28
Stipulation and [ Order; CASE NO. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)

2

1

scheduled mediation date, the parties also respectfully request that the mediation cutoff date

2

(currently July 16, 2014) be extended to September 25, 2014.

3

WHEREAS, there have been three previous time modifications in this action. On March 27,

4

2013, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to extend the deadlines in this action by four months.

5

Dkt. No. 303. On August 30, 2013, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to further extend the

6

deadlines in the action by approximately one month. Dkt. No. 331. On November 6, 2013, the

7

Court extended the fact discovery deadline as to discovery from third party JPMorgan Chase Bank,

8

N.A. until December 22, 2013 and extended expert discovery and certain other deadlines to

9

accommodate this change. Dkt. No. 350.

10

WHEREAS, the requested time modification will affect no other deadlines in this action.

11

WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth herein, good cause exists to extend the dates requested

12
13
14
15

herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
STIPULATED by and between the parties, that the following deadlines be adjusted as follows:
Event

New Deadline

Expert Discovery Cut-Off

Prior Deadline per
November 6, 2013 Order
(Dkt. #350)
June 30, 2014

Mediation

July 16, 2014

September 25, 2014

July 25, 2014

August 22, 2014

August 22, 2014

August 22, 2014

October 9, 2014

October 9, 2014

23

Dispositive Motion Hearing
Cut-Off
Other Motion Hearing CutOff (other than motions in
limine)
Pretrial Conference (hearing
on motions in limine, agreed
jury instructions and verdict
forms, proposed voir dire)
Pretrial Brief

October 30, 2014

October 30, 2014

24

Trial Date

November 24, 2014

November 24, 2014

16

September 5, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22

25
26
27
28
Stipulation and ] Order; CASE NO. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)

3

1

Dated: June 12, 2014

FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
By:
s/Joseph N. Kravec, Jr.
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Co-Lead Class Counsel

2
3
4
5

Dated: June 12, 2014

By:
s/Janet Lindner Spielberg
Janet Lindner Spielberg, Co-Lead Class Counsel

6
7

LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG

Dated: June 12, 2014

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

8
By:
s/A. Matthew Ashley
Attorneys for DEFENDANT

9
10
11

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
Dated: ________________________
14
15

Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation and [] Order; CASE NO. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)

4

_