Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Bifurcate Discovery. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 8/16/2013. (ams)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 13-60768-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
ADAM KARHU, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
d/b/a VPX SPORTS,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY
AND AMEND SCHEDULE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
d/ba/ VPX Sports’ Motion to Bifurcate Discovery and Amend Schedule [DE 30]. The
Court has considered the motion, Plaintiff’s response [DE 31], Defendant’s reply [DE
33], the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
In the instant motion, Defendant moves to bifurcate discovery in this case
between discovery related to class certification, and discovery related to the merits of
the claims. Defendant further asks the Court to modify the current case schedule for an
earlier deadline for Plaintiff’s class certification motion, presently set for October 11,
2013. See DE 20.
District courts have “broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities,
including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263
F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). In class-action suits, “the Court may, in the interests
of fairness and efficiency, order discovery on issues of class certification while

postponing class-wide discovery on the merits.” Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Anda,
Inc., No. 12-60798-CIV-ROSENBAUM, 2012 WL 7856269, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27,
2012) (citing Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 157071 (11th Cir. 1992)). However, a scheduling order, such as the one in this case, may
only be modified “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4).
Here, Defendant’s argument for bifurcation of discovery and for amendment of
the scheduling order is as follows:
Plaintiff should not be allowed to conduct a fishing expedition for the
purposes of seeking information to determine if he truly filed an
appropriate class action complaint. . . . Plaintiff should not be allowed
months and months to fish for evidence via potentially multiple discovery
requests and depositions to simply determine if his claims are common
and typical to those of other purported class members – if Plaintiff filed
this complaint as a class action, Plaintiff should already have adequate
evidence to establish commonality and typicality, and especially adequacy
of representation.
DE 30 at 3. Defendant does not explain why it would be fairer or more efficient to
bifurcate discovery. Nor does Defendant indicate specifically what type of information
Plaintiff is seeking from Defendant that is merits-related and would impose a significant
burden on Defendant to produce. Defendant’s bare assertion that Plaintiff is attempting
to engage in a fishing expedition is insufficient to support the relief requested.
Accordingly, because Defendant has failed to show good cause for bifurcating
discovery or amending the scheduling order, the motion will be denied. It is thereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Discovery
and Amend Schedule [DE 30] is DENIED.

2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, on this 16th day of August, 2013.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF.

3