Feske et al v. MHC Thousand Trails Limited Partnership et al
Filing
42
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 33 Motion to Bifurcate (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
)
Case No.: C 11-04124 PSG
)
Plaintiffs,
)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO BIFURCATE
)
DISCOVERY
v.
)
)
(Re: Docket No. 33)
MHC THOUSAND TRIALS LIMITED
)
PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
DAVID FESKE AND TERI FESKE,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Defendants MHC Thousand Trails Limited Partnership, MHC Operating Limited
18
Partnership, Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. and Thousand Trails Management Services, Inc.
19
(collectively “Defendants”) move to bifurcate discovery. Plaintiffs David Feske and Teri Feske
20
(collectively “Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. On January 3, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing.
21
Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel,
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to bifurcate discovery is DENIED.
23
This is a putative class action. Defendants argue that to reduce the burden of the far-reaching
24
and costly discovery suggested by Plaintiffs, discovery should be bifurcated into two phases – class
25
and merits discovery. Defendants cite three specific reasons to bifurcate: (1) class discovery will be
26
substantially narrower; (2) if, as Defendants expect, the court denies class certification, substantial
27
merits discovery including discovery on liability and damages can be avoided; and (3) bifurcation
28
Case No.: C 11-04124 PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BIFURCATE
1
1
2
will expedite the certification decision.
Plaintiffs respond that because the issues of class certification are so intertwined with the
3
underlying causes of action, bifurcation will not work and that any efficiency gains would be
4
illusory.
5
Although this is a close question, the court agrees with Plaintiffs. Only recently, in Dukes v.
6
Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court addressed the certification requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A)
7
and affirmed the certification determination “will entail some overlap with the merits of the
8
plaintiff’s underlying claim.”1 The necessary implication is that even under a bifurcated structure,
9
certain merits discovery will be required. Bifurcation may nevertheless make sense in some cases.
10
But where, as here, fraud and other representation-based claims are at the center of the case, the
11
overlap of the merits to the certification question appears so substantial that any efficiency gains
12
from bifurcation appear to be minimal. Under these circumstances, the court sees little benefit to
13
drawing a line between class discovery and merits discovery that will almost certainly invite further
14
dissonance among the parties.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: 1/4/2012
17
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
__U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 51-52, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011).
Case No.: C 11-04124 PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO BIFURCATE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?