Turnage v. Cleveland State Bank et al

Filing 60

ORDER DEFINING SCOPE OF HEARING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/28/14. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
ELLIS TURNAGE

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-00145-JMV

CLEVELAND STATE BANK, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DEFINING SCOPE OF HEARING
This matter has been set for an in-person hearing on November 6, 2014, on Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Discovery [39] and Defendants’ Motion to Seal Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [50].
As an initial matter, the court reminds the parties that the scope of the issues before it are
limited to class certification discovery, not merits discovery–except to the extent the one
necessarily entails the other. See CMO [11] entered February 14, 2014. Turning to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel, at the hearing Plaintiff should be prepared to identify on the record the
specific claims he is asserting on behalf of the putative class(es); the definition of the putative
class(es) as relates to each identified cause of action; the elements of each cause of action
asserted on behalf of each putative class; and, most importantly, how the requested discovery is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on one or more of the
following issues as pertains to each putative class’s causes of action:
1) Whether claimants in each class are so numerous that joinder of all is
impracticable.
2) Whether the claims of the members within each class are sufficiently common
to warrant class certification. This will necessarily entail an understanding of the
elements of each such cause of action. Further in this respect, counsel is directed
to consider the import of the holdings in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131
S.Ct. 2541 (2011) and General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S.

147 (1982) and cases decided since their passage.
3) Whether Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of each class.
4) Whether Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class.
In as much as Plaintiff has asserted that his claims for class certification are brought
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), counsel should also be prepared to articulate how the discovery at
issue is reasonablely calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the
23(b)(2) criteria for class certification.
Defense counsel are similarly instructed to be prepared to articulate why each discovery
request in dispute is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on
the certification criteria identified above and specified in Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
Finally, as regards Defendants’ Motion to Seal, defense counsel should be prepared to
identify what particular information in Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Defendants deem confidential and proprietary. Defense counsel must explain whether the
information is otherwise available to the public and why redaction–as opposed to sealing the
entire document–is not a more appropriate means of protecting the information Defendants deem
confidential.
So Ordered this 28th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2