Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER Denying 53 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Continue Class Certification and Expert Report Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 7/10/15. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12

ROBERT STEVENS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 14cv1158 BAS (JLB)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE
CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
EXPERT REPORT DEADLINES

v.
CORELOGIC, INC.,

13

Defendant.

[ECF No. 53]

14
15

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion to Continue Class

16

Certification and Expert Report Deadlines for Two Weeks. (ECF No. 53.) Defendant filed

17

a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 56), and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (ECF No. 57). For

18

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

19

Plaintiffs seek to continue the class certification and expert deadlines until after the

20

Court has addressed outstanding discovery issues,1 and has ruled upon Plaintiff’s June 15,

21

2015 request to modify the Scheduling Order dates.2 (ECF No. 53 at 2.) Plaintiffs assert

22
23
1

24
25
26
27

The Court has scheduled an informal telephonic discovery conference for July 17, 2015. (ECF No.
52.)
2
Plaintiffs incorrectly state that they have a pending request to modify the Scheduling Order. Judge
Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules provide: “The dates and times set in the Case Management Conference
Order will not be modified except for good cause shown in timely filed motions.” (Section III, Paragraph
C.) The request that Plaintiffs allude to was made in an informal joint discovery statement that was lodged
to Judge Burkhardt’s efile email address.
1
14cv1158 BAS (JLB)

1

that “CoreLogic’s refusal to timely comply with its discovery obligations has made it

2

effectively impossible for [P]laintiffs to comply with [P]laintiffs’ Monday, July 13, 2015

3

deadline to file class certification papers and Tuesday, July 15, 2015 deadline to file initial

4

expert reports.” (Id. at 5.)

5

In its Opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs “do not explain how or why the

6

discovery they demand is necessary for the expert reports or class certification briefing

7

they seek to delay.” (ECF No. 56 at 2.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs have agreed to defer a

8

number of discovery issues. “Plaintiffs cannot decide to defer discovery disputes and then

9

contend that those discovery disputes provide a basis for delaying this case.” (Id. at 6.)

10

Finally, Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion is untimely and inappropriate

11

because it “raises new discovery disputes regarding, for instance, interrogatories and

12

document requests, about which the parties have not met and conferred.” (Id. at 7.)

13

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to set forth good cause for the requested

14

extension. Plaintiffs do not address why the requested discovery is relevant to the dates

15

they seek to continue. While Plaintiffs argue that “CoreLogic’s refusal to timely comply

16

with its discovery obligations has made it effectively impossible for [P]laintiffs to comply”

17

with deadlines, Plaintiffs fail to address how the outstanding discovery relates to, or why

18

it is necessary for, their motion for class certification or expert reports.

19

Additionally, Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules required that “Any motion

20

requesting extensions should be filed ten calendar days in advance of the dates and

21

deadlines at issue . . . .” (Section III, Paragraph C.) Plaintiffs’ motion was filed on July 7,

22

2015, less than one week before the class certification deadline. (ECF No. 53.) “When [a]

23

motion is made after time has expired, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) requires the parties to

24

address excusable neglect.”

25

Paragraph C.)

26

acknowledge that the motion to continue is untimely. The deadlines that Plaintiffs seek to

27

continue have been in place since January 7, 2015. (ECF No. 26.)

(Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules, Section III,

Plaintiffs’ motion fails to address excusable neglect, nor does it

2
14cv1158 BAS (JLB)

1

Furthermore, a number of the pending discovery disputes that Plaintiffs offer in

2

support of their Motion to Continue, are not yet ripe for Court intervention. Plaintiffs seek

3

to continue deadlines until after the Court has addressed the outstanding discovery disputes

4

raised in the June 15, 2015 Joint Statement, attached hereto as Exhibit A. (ECF No. 53 at

5

2.) Specifically, Plaintiffs point to Defendant’s “hampering and delaying communications

6

and subpoenas to its MLS customers,” as a justification for continuing dates. (ECF No. 53

7

at 7.) However, Plaintiffs have agreed to defer this dispute, as well as others: “The parties

8

agree that this dispute is deferred.” (June 15, 2015 Joint Statement, Exhibit A at 9.)

9

Finally, Defendant contends that a number of discovery disputes were raised for the

10

first time in the Joint Statement and in Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion. (ECF No. 56 at 6.) In

11

light of Defendant’s representation, it appears that the parties have not completed the meet

12

and confer process as to a number of the disputes raised. Accordingly, these disputes are

13

not properly before the Court. “The Court will not address discovery disputes until counsel

14

have met and conferred to resolve the dispute. The Court expects strict compliance with

15

the meet and confer requirement . . . .” (Judge Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules, Section

16

IV, Paragraph A.) The Minute Order directing the parties to lodge the Joint Statement

17

further provided: “The Court expects that the parties have complied with Judge Burkhardt’s

18

Civil Chambers Rules regarding the meet and confer requirements as to each discovery

19

dispute raised in the Joint Statement.” (ECF No. 48.)

20
21
22
23

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion to Continue Class
Certification and Expert Report Deadlines is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2015

24
25
26
27
3
14cv1158 BAS (JLB)

EXHIBIT A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15

IN RE: MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE
REAL ESTATE PHOTO LITIGATION

Case No. 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING
OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES

16

Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jill L. Burkhardt
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

The parties in the above-captioned matter submit the following Joint Statement

2

Regarding Outstanding Discovery Disputes pursuant to the Minute Order, filed June 12,

3

2015 advising “the Court of the nature of ALL currently outstanding discovery disputes.”

4

[ECF 48]

5

I.

PLAINTIFFS’ OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES WITH
DEFENDANT CORELOGIC

6

A.
7
8
9

Production of Documents CoreLogic Agreed To Produce Pursuant to
CoreLogic’s March 9, 2015 Discovery Responses

CoreLogic agreed to produce documents pursuant to CoreLogic’s discovery
responses served March 9, 2015 and subsequent meet and confer discussions. A chart

10

summarizing the documents CoreLogic agreed to produce in discovery responses is

11

attached as Exhibit A, with annotations that Plaintiffs contend represent the state of

12

CoreLogic’s production. A chart that Plaintiffs contend summarizes documents

13

CoreLogic agreed to produce after meet and confer discussions is attached as Exhibit B.

14

On March 16, 2015, CoreLogic produced documents it identified as Bates

15

CoreLogic135-11147 containing contracts between CoreLogic and MLS operators that

16

were identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 and Bates CoreLogic 1148-

17

11541 containing contracts between MLS operators and MLS users.

18

On June 12, 2015, CoreLogic produced additional documents that it identified as

19

containing PartnerInfoNet contracts, marketing documents for certain CoreLogic products

20

and a spreadsheet. There is an “unexpected end of archive” error with the those files, so

21

they could not be extracted and viewed. The error was corrected on June 15, 2015.

22
23
24

On June 15, 2015 at 3:50 pm, CoreLogic made an additional production of
documents.
Plaintiffs request that CoreLogic complete production of these documents by

25

Friday, June 26, 2015 (or such other date consistent with any amended Scheduling

26

Order).

27
28
30
31

CoreLogic’s Position: Today is the first time Plaintiffs have proposed a date certain
for the completion of CoreLogic’s production. CoreLogic has been producing documents
1
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

on a rolling basis, and has produced more than 13,000 pages of documents, as well as the

2

many thousands of requested source-code files. Plaintiffs’ charts regarding the claimed

3

deficiencies in CoreLogic’s production are not accurate; for example, they say that

4

CoreLogic has not produced MLS rules and regulations in its possession, but CoreLogic

5

produced those documents back in March. They say that CoreLogic has not produced

6

sales brochures or identified product web pages, but CoreLogic did so last week. They

7

say that CoreLogic has not identified those involved in writing MLS software code to

8

copy or modify photos, but CoreLogic has provided its records of who wrote which pieces

9

of the code in question as part of its source code repositories. And Plaintiffs first

10

identified their technical problem extracting CoreLogic’s June 12 document production

11

today, June 15, at 12:21 PM; CoreLogic resolved that issue by 2:03 PM today. This is a

12

manufactured dispute. To the extent Plaintiffs believe there are remaining deficiencies in

13

CoreLogic’s document production, they should identify those deficiencies and meet and

14

confer regarding a date for production of those documents (or receive confirmation that no

15

such documents exist).

16

B.

17

CoreLogic Partially Produced Contracts with MLS Operators In
Response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2

18

On March 16, 2015, CoreLogic produced documents Bates CoreLogic135-11147

19

containing contracts between CoreLogic and MLS operators that were identified in

20

response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. Those interrogatories requested the identities of

21

CoreLogic’s MLS software customers

22

On April 21, 2015, plaintiffs sent CoreLogic’s counsel a list of the MLS operators

23

listed in those document and a list of MLS operators disclosed in CoreLogic press releases

24

to show CoreLogic’s production of contracts was incomplete.

25

Plaintiffs request that CoreLogic complete production of these documents by

26

Friday, June 26, 2015 (or such other date consistent with any amended Scheduling

27

Order). In light of the partial and incomplete production of contracts by CoreLogic,

28

plaintiffs also request that CoreLogic respond to Interrogatory No. 1 without reference to

30
31

2
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Rule 33(d) by Friday, June 26, 2015 (or such other date consistent with any amended

2

Scheduling Order) so plaintiffs can be assured that they have all agreements.

3

CoreLogic’s Position: This is another attempt to manufacture a discovery dispute

4

where none exists: Plaintiffs have never met and conferred with CoreLogic regarding this

5

issue. If they had, they would have learned that they are mistaken in their understanding

6

of the CoreLogic press releases they referenced in the list they sent in April. That list

7

includes 58 MLSes listed as participating in CoreLogic’s “PartnerInfoNet” arrangement.

8

But that arrangement is not limited to those who use CoreLogic’s MLS software, and thus

9

it is no surprise that some MLSes are identified as participating in PartnerInfoNet but

10

have no contract with CoreLogic for the use of CoreLogic’s MLS software.

11

C.

Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of CoreLogic Set for June 1, 2015

12

On May 11, 2015, plaintiffs served their Notice of Video Deposition of Defendant

13

CoreLogic, Inc. (“PMK Deposition”) listing thirty-two (32) categories of testimony.

14

Almost all of those deposition categories were conveyed to CoreLogic via email on April

15

22, 2015 to facilitate discussion prior to serving the formal deposition notice.

16

The PMK Deposition was noticed to commence on June 1, 2015 in downtown San

17

Diego. Plaintiffs explained in an email accompanying the PMK Deposition notice that

18

“downtown San Diego [] is only about 75 miles from CoreLogic's principal place of

19

business in Irvine and is about a 10 minute drive from the airport or about five minute

20

walk from the train station. ‘The general presumption is that a corporate designee is

21

deposed at the corporation's principal place of business.’ Avago Techs. U.S. Inc. v.

22

IPtronics, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159260 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012).”

23

On May 29, 2015, CoreLogic served objections to plaintiffs’ PMK Deposition, so

24

the PMK Deposition did not go forward on June 1, 2015. [See Exhibit C.] On June 2,

25

2015, the parties met and conferred regarding those objections. CoreLogic objects to

26

producing a witness for certain deposition testimony topics or subtopics as set forth on

27

Exhibit D.

28
30
31

On June 11, CoreLogic offered the following deposition dates:
3
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Al
6/23/15 Greensboro,
NC
2 McElmon
Alex
6/30/15 Vancouver,
3 Troy
Canada
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Topics 1, 2, 3, 4
(technical subjects)
Topic 5 (technical
subjects)

Technical issues relating to
InnoVia
Technical issues relating to
Fusion, Matrix, MLXchange,
and Tempo5
Plaintiffs request that CoreLogic designate and produce witnesses for all 32

deposition topics by Tuesday, June 30, 2015 (or such other date consistent with any
amended Scheduling Order).
Plaintiffs request that the PMK Deposition take place within 75 miles of
CoreLogic’s world headquarters in Irvine, CA. See Avago Techs. U.S. Inc, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 159260 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012).
CoreLogic’s Position: Deposition Topics. Plaintiffs served a fifteen-page 30(b)(6)
deposition notice on CoreLogic, containing thirty-two topics for deposition—many of
which contain numerous subparts, making the real number of topics more than 100,
covering numerous aspects of CoreLogic’s business, marketing, technology, and finances.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have noticed zero individual depositions. The parties met and
conferred telephonically regarding those topics on June 2. On that call, Plaintiffs agreed
to narrow or clarify some of the topics, but said that they wished to expand or modify
other topics. They sent a (somewhat cryptic) summary of the call on June 4. On June 5,
counsel for CoreLogic requested that Plaintiffs provide an amended list of topics setting
forth clearly what modifications, clarifications, amendments, and expansions to topics
they were proposing. Plaintiffs have not provided such an amended list of topics or made
any further effort to meet and confer in the intervening week. Because it is not clear what
Plaintiffs are proposing, CoreLogic is not able to fully respond, except by reference to the
objections it served.
Nevertheless, CoreLogic acknowledges that there are some topics encompassed
within the 30(b)(6) notice on which Plaintiffs are entitled to testimony, and has moved
forward with scheduling depositions on those topics even while the dispute regarding
deposition topics is ongoing. CoreLogic offered witnesses on the key technical issues in

28
30
31

4
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

the case—the operation of the CoreLogic MLS software that is the subject of Plaintiffs’

2

claims—on June 11. Plaintiffs have not said whether or not they plan to go forward with

3

the depositions on the offered dates. Given that Plaintiffs have not confirmed these first

4

two depositions, CoreLogic cannot offer further dates for other witnesses, since the

5

scheduling of those depositions depends in part on whether the first two witnesses’

6

depositions go forward on June 23 and June 30.

7

Deposition Location. Plaintiffs have chosen to serve a vast array of 30(b)(6)

8

topics, which will necessitate testimony from a number of CoreLogic employees who

9

work in different offices. None of CoreLogic’s operations relating to the subject matter of

10

this case occur in this district. Some CoreLogic operations relating to the case occur at

11

CoreLogic’s Irvine, California office, and witnesses relating to those operations (for

12

example, the company’s finances) will be offered in Irvine, where those witnesses live

13

and work. But the software on which Plaintiffs have chosen to focus their claims is not

14

developed in California. Some of the software is developed in North Carolina, and

15

CoreLogic intends to offer its witness on that software for deposition in North Carolina.

16

Other software at issue is developed near Vancouver, Canada, and CoreLogic will offer a

17

witness on that software in Vancouver. The relevant “place of business” of CoreLogic

18

here is where the business operations that are the subject of each particular topic are

19

conducted; thus, even under the default rule, they should be conducted near the CoreLogic

20

offices in question. Plaintiffs have noticed no individual depositions and are using the

21

30(b)(6) process as a substitute for individual depositions. There is no question that

22

individual depositions would need to take place where the witnesses live and work;

23

Plaintiffs should not be able to shift the burden onto Defendant by serving dozens upon

24

dozens of 30(b)(6) topics instead of noticing individual depositions.

25

D.

Source Code Review Issues

26

On June 9, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Source Code Review

27

[ECF47] to resolve several outstanding disputes regarding review of source code

28

produced by CoreLogic in response to discovery. The parties set a source code review on

30
31

5
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Monday, June 15, 2015 in San Francisco (CoreLogic’s counsel’s office) with plaintiffs’

2

counsel (Joel Rothman) and their computer expert (Chuck Hedrick) flying to San

3

Francisco.

4

1.

Reimbursement of Costs for Source Code Review in Irvine on May
15, 2015

5
6

Plaintiffs contend plaintiffs’ expert Chuck Hedrick was unable to meaningfully

7

review CoreLogic source code when it was produced in Irvine, California on May 15,

8

2015 for the reasons set forth in the Declaration of Chuck Hedrick submitted to the court

9

on June 4, 2015.

10

Plaintiffs expended over $6,500 to attend this May 15, 2015 source code review

11

consisting of $750 to fly an IT Manager from CoreLogic’s counsels’ firm to supervise the

12

source code review, plus over 10 hours of attorney time ($4,500) and expert time ($1,200)

13

in connection with the May 15, 2015 source code review. Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation

14

Regarding Source Code Review [ECF47] reserves plaintiffs’ right to seek reimbursement.

15

CoreLogic’s Position: There is no dispute for the Court to resolve. Plaintiffs

16

appear to be reserving the right to raise a dispute in the future. Any difficulties

17

experienced by Plaintiff’s expert at the first source code review result from the fact that

18

Plaintiffs did not request that certain software tools be installed on the source code review

19

computer, and later decided that such tools would facilitate the review. Plaintiffs

20

requested that Defendant install those tools in advance of the second source code review,

21

and Defendant did so.

22
23
24

2.

Production of Source Code Files Identified in CoreLogic’s
Interrogatory Responses Nos 6-8

On June 2, 2015, the parties submitted to the court Defendant Corelogic, Inc.’s

25

Supplemental Responses And Objections to Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, and 8 See Exhibit E.

26

As more fully set forth in Exhibit E, CoreLogic identified and agreed to produce certain

27

source code files in response to Interrogatory Nos. 6-8, that request information regarding

28

the operation of CoreLogic’s MLS software.

30
31

6
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation Regarding Source Code Review [ECF47] provides:

2

“The parties defer their dispute regarding whether CL has sufficiently responded to

3

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories 6, 7 and 8, and whether CL can rely upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)

4

in its responses to these interrogatories.”

5

Plaintiffs anticipate to be able to determine at the June 15, 2015 source code review

6

in San Francisco whether CoreLogic may rely upon Rule 33(d) in responding to these

7

interrogatories.
CoreLogic’s Position: There is no dispute for the Court to resolve. Plaintiffs

8
9

appear to be reserving the right to raise a dispute in the future. CoreLogic has

10

appropriately relied on Rule 33(d) in responding to these interrogatories, as the answer to

11

the interrogatory may be determined by examining the source code of the CoreLogic

12

products in question, and the burden of ascertaining the answer is substantially the same

13

for either party.

14

3.

15

Production of Source Code Files Identified In Response to
Interrogatory No. 6

16

On May 18, 2015, pursuant to ¶9(d) of the Order Granting Joint Motion And

17

Entering Stipulated Protective Order [ECF 42], plaintiffs requested .tiff or .pdf copies of

18

the following “limited portions of source code that are reasonably necessary for the

19

preparation of court filings, pleadings, expert reports, or other papers, or for deposition or

20

trial.”

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

1. The files listed in DEFENDANT CORELOGIC, INC.’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
INTERROGATORY NOS. 6, 7, AND 8 IN PLAINTIFF STEVEN
VANDEL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, namely:
[list of files]
2. The files Mr. Hedrick identified on the .txt file he saved to the C:
drive of the source code review laptop that he showed to Mr.
Weinroth.
Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation Regarding Source Code Review [ECF47] provides:
“Portions of source code identified by Plaintiffs’ expert pursuant to the terms of the
7
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Stipulated Protective Order entered at Dkt. 41 in this action (“SPO”) shall be produced

2

with Bates numbering within three (3) days of Plaintiffs’ request unless said portions are

3

challenged pursuant to the terms of the SPO.”

4

No Bates numbered source code files have been produced to plaintiffs. CoreLogic

5

takes the position that plaintiffs’ expert must review each of these files identified in its

6

interrogatory responses at the June 15, 2015 source code review in San Francisco.
Plaintiffs request that all source code files designated by plaintiffs’ expert on June

7
8

15, 2015 be produced in Bates format no later than Thursday, June 18, 2015.

9

CoreLogic’s Position: CoreLogic is producing the source files identified by Mr.

10

Hedrick at the source code review (denominated “2” above) today, June 15, 2015. The

11

source files denominated “1” above are not subject to production under the Protective

12

Order, because Plaintiffs are requesting their production in lieu of inspection. That is

13

expressly forbidden by the protective order to which the parties agreed. See ECF No. 42 ¶

14

9(d) (“The Receiving Party may request .tiff or .pdf copies of limited portions of source

15

code that are reasonably necessary for the preparation of court filings, pleadings, expert

16

reports, or other papers, or for deposition or trial, but shall not request .tiff or .pdf

17

copies for the purpose of reviewing the source code in the first instance.”) (emphasis

18

added). If Mr. Hedrick determines, upon inspecting them, that additional files are

19

reasonably necessary for the agreed purposes, Plaintiffs may request their production at

20

that time. By the parties’ agreement, CoreLogic will produce the files or articulate its

21

objection to doing so within three business days of the request.
E.

22

Deferred Discovery Disputes
1.

23

Deferred Written Discovery

The parties agreed to defer certain of plaintiffs’ discovery until after CoreLogic

24
25

completes producing the documents and source code it agreed to produce. See §I.A,

26

supra.

27

A list of the deferred written discovery is attached as Exhibit F.

28
30
31

8
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1
2

CoreLogic’s Position: This section does not identify any dispute for the Court to
resolve.
2.

3
4

Subpoenas to MLS Operators With Cover Letter

Plaintiffs sent a blank draft subpoena to CoreLogic MLS customers on April 21,

5

2015. See Exhibit G. Plaintiffs took the position that a Confidential designation on

6

contracts produced by CoreLogic cannot prevent plaintiffs from serving subpoenas to

7

such persons. CoreLogic took the position that the identity of its MLS customers are

8

confidential and that plaintiffs’ proposed cover letter was improper. Plaintiffs further

9

responded that the identity of the MLS operators is available on the Internet, including

10

many MLS operators disclosed in CoreLogic press releases. Plaintiffs also sent a draft

11

cover letter to accompany each subpoena that had been revised after discussions with

12

CoreLogic’s counsel. See Exhibit H. CoreLogic took the position that the draft cover

13

letter was improper. Plaintiffs took the position that communications with those MLS

14

operators are fully privileged and authorized pursuant to the litigation privilege set forth in

15

Cal. Civil Code §47.

16

Following further meet and confer, CoreLogic sent draft objections to the draft

17

subpoena on May 25, 2015. See Exhibit I. On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs agreed that they

18

will not send any letter to an MLS until the Court has ruled on the propriety of such letter

19

and will not serve a subpoena to an MLS until the Court has ruled on the propriety of

20

such subpoena (or until the parties have agreed that no Court intervention is necessary).

21

The parties agree that this dispute is deferred.

22
23

CoreLogic’s Position: This section does not identify any dispute for the Court to
resolve.

24

F.

Scheduling order

25

Because of the outstanding discovery issues above, plaintiffs believe that it is

26

appropriate to modify the Scheduling Order [ECF 26]. The current Scheduling Order

27

provides for, inter alia:

28
30
31

9
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Class Certification Motion

7/13/15

2

Expert Reports - Initial

7/14/15

3

Expert Reports – Opposition

8/15/15

4

Discovery Cut off

9/14/15

5

Mandatory Settlement Conference

9/21/15

6

Motion Cut off

10/14/15

7
8

Pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan [ECF 23], the parties focused on issues that

9

would facilitate “plaintiffs being able to make a settlement demand and move for class

10

certification.” Id. at PDF 2. Pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties pursued

11

“informal settlement discussions.” Id. Plaintiffs issued a written settlement demand

12

within insurance policy limits on April 28, 2015.

13

Pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan: “The parties foresee that changes to the

14

proposed discovery and scheduling dates may be necessary in light of discovery produced,

15

settlement discussions, motion practice and court rulings on threshold issues. The parties

16

propose periodic attorneys only telephonic court status conferences to monitor the parties’

17

informal settlement efforts and to monitor the need for adjustments to scheduling

18

deadlines.” Id.

19

Plaintiffs request that CoreLogic be ordered to provide dates by when CoreLogic

20

can supply the outstanding discovery and modify the Scheduling Order dates based upon

21

CoreLogic’s final production of the outstanding discovery. Although plaintiffs provided a

22

spreadsheet to CoreLogic on June 15, 2015 allowing the easy re-calculation of dates in the

23

Scheduling Order, the extended dates on the spreadsheet are not a proposal by plaintiffs

24

for an extension to those dates. Once CoreLogic commits (or is ordered) to provide all

25

documents and its PMK witnesses by a date certain, then the dates in the Scheduling

26

Order can be logically extended.

27
28
30
31

Alternatively, plaintiffs’ counsel Darren Quinn raised the potential of: (1) extending
the class certification motion deadline to a date after the completion of the PMK
10
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Deposition; (2) setting a Mandatory Settlement Conference date within thirty days after

2

the class certification ruling in light of the importance of the class certification ruling and

3

the potential to seek appellate review of any class certification ruling; and (3) vacating all

4

other scheduling dates until after the mandatory settlement conference. Because

5

plaintiffs’ counsel Darren Quinn first thought of this alternative at about 6:30 p.m. on

6

June 15, 2015 in connection with finalizing this Joint Statement, neither party has had the

7

opportunity to explore this potential alternative.

8

CoreLogic’s Position: This is Plaintiffs’ second attempt to modify the case

9

schedule. Judge Bashant denied their first attempt in an order dated April 2, 2015, ECF

10

No. 32. As with their first attempt, they have simply failed to meet and confer, and the

11

request should be denied on that basis. Plaintiffs do not appear to have learned their

12

lesson. For the first time today, Plaintiffs have provided their proposal to modify the

13

schedule.

14

Discovery in this action closes in September. As discussed above, CoreLogic has

15

produced virtually all of the documents that Plaintiffs seek (as narrowed through meet-

16

and-confer). CoreLogic is moving forward with the presentation of 30(b)(6) witnesses,

17

offering dates that Plaintiffs have not yet accepted. Plaintiffs have the information they

18

need to move forward with the case—and if they don’t, they needed to speak up sooner.

19

There is no justification for modifying the case schedule at this stage.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

11
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB

1

Dated: June 15, 2015

DURIE TANGRI LLP
By:

2
3

Attorneys for Defendant
CORELOGIC, INC.

4
5
6

/s/ Joseph C. Gratz
DARALYN J. DURIE
JOSEPH C. GRATZ

Dated: June 15, 2015

LAW OFFICES OF DARREN
J. QUINN

7

By:

8
9

/s/ Darren J. Quinn
DARREN J. QUINN
Attorney for Plaintiffs

10
11

Dated: June 15, 2015

SCHNEIDER ROTHMAN
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LAW GROUP PLLC

12

By:

13
14

/s/ Joel B. Rothman
JOEL B. ROTHMAN
Attorney for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

12
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01158-BAS-JLB