Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc

Filing 220

ORDER Regarding Deadlines for Motions. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/3/2011. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17

GUIFU LI, MENG WANG, FANG DAI, LIN )
CUI, and ZHONG YU, on behalf of themselves )
and all others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
A PERFECT DAY FRANCHISE, INC., a
)
California Corporation, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-01189-LHK
ORDER REGARDING DEADLINES
FOR MOTIONS

18
19

Plaintiffs submitted a “Request for Status Conference” on August 2, 2011. In it, Plaintiffs

20

ask to vacate the current class certification briefing schedule based on a number of issues. The

21

Court has granted multiple extensions to the class certification briefing schedule due to delays in

22

discovery. In the last extension, the Court stated that no further extensions would be granted. The

23

Court will not extend the class certification briefing schedule.

24

Based on Plaintiffs’ filing, it appears that Defendants have raised a potential conflict of

25

interest between Plaintiffs’ counsel Adam Wang and Defendants. This potential conflict came to

26

light during a deposition on July 12, 2011. To date, Defendants have not made a motion to

27

disqualify Mr. Wang or any of the rest of Plaintiffs’ counsel. If Defendants intend to file such a

28

1
Case No.: 10-CV-01189-LHK
ORDER REGARDING DEADLINES FOR MOTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

motion, they shall do so by August 5, 2011. If Defendants file such a motion, Mr. Wang may not
work on this matter until the motion is resolved. However, even if Defendants move to disqualify
all of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the rest of Plaintiffs’ counsel may work on the case until the motion to
disqualify is resolved. Plaintiffs state that they have postponed other depositions because of the
potential conflicts. The parties are ordered to reschedule these depositions so that they are
concluded on or before August 10, 2011.
In addition, Plaintiffs state that Defendants have not made Mr. Zou available for deposition
on the scheduled date of July 11, 2011, despite this Court’s Order that the date for his deposition be
set by June 24, 2011. Plaintiffs shall make a motion to compel, a motion for sanctions for
contempt of this Court’s Order, or both, by August 5, 2011.
The Court is disappointed that both parties appear to be delaying resolution of this case.
While the Defendants have failed to cooperate in producing witnesses, Plaintiffs have not asserted
their rights by filing motions to compel or other motions requiring Defendants to comply with their
discovery obligations. If the parties do not wish to litigate this case, they are encouraged to settle
it. Otherwise, the case schedule remains as set.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 3, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 10-CV-01189-LHK
ORDER REGARDING DEADLINES FOR MOTIONS