CompSource Oklahoma et al v. BNY Mellon, N.A. et al

Filing 416

ORDER by Mag. Judge Kimberly E. West Defendants' Expedited Motion to Enlarge the Due Date for Their Opposition to Class Certification (Docket No. 406 ) is GRANTED. Response to 397 MOTION to Certify Class and to Appoint Class Counsel due by 11/8/2011, reply due 12/23/2011. (neh, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA;
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL
NO. 26 PENSION TRUST FUND,
in its capacity as a
fiduciary of the Electrical
Workers Local No. 26 Pension
Trust Fund;
THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF
PHILADELPHIA FOUNDATION;
THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF
PHILADELPHIA, individually
and in its capacity as
fiduciary of the Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia
Defined Benefit Master Trust,
on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,

FILED
OCT 19 2011
WILLIAM B, GUTHRIE
Clerk, U.S. District Court

By

-""'i)r.;A~PIJ:i:'tv;-;c~j.,~.t--

Plaintiffs,
Case No. CIV-08-469-KEW

v.

BNY MELLON, N.A. and
THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON CORPORATION,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Expedited
Motion

to

Enlarge

Certification

the

filed

Due Date

September

for

26,

Their Opposition to

2011

(Docket

Entry

Class

#406).

Defendants seek a four week extension to the deadline established
in the Stipulated Modifications to the Joint Discovery and Schedule
Plan No.

1

(the

"Plan")

for

the

filing

of

their

response

to

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed August 26, 2011.

Defendants assert two bases for requesting this extension.
Defendants'

counsel state that they are involved in related and

unrelated litigation pending in the Central District of California
and Southern District of Florida which are set for trial in January
of 2012 and October of 2011, respectively.

Although Defendants'

counsel's law firm employs multiple attorneys, counsel contend that
the primary counsel involved in this case are also involved in the
two cases in other jurisdictions set for trial.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs contributed to the delay
in their ability to respond to the Motion for Class Certification
in failing to clearly define the proposed class in the Motion.
Defendants

state

definition

of

communication.

some

the

two

class

weeks
was

passed

before

established

Plaintiffs'

through

outside

Specifically, Plaintiffs misidentified an exhibit

in the Motion until the proper exhibit number was determined and
inconsistencies

were

resolved

with

Plaintiffs

concerning

the

information contained in the Motion and the relevant exhibit.
Defendants also indicate Plaintiffs could have filed the Motion for
Class Certification earlier but chose to wait five months, placing
the scheduling closer to the holidays.
Not surprisingly, Plaintiffs oppose the extension, contending
the

deadline

was

stipulated Plan.

negotiated when

the

parties

agreed

upon

the

At that time, Defendants were afforded more time

than would have been allowed under this Court's local rules to

2

respond to the Motion for

Class

Certification.

Additionally,

Plaintiffs challenge the timing of the required deadline of their
reply under the
impending

Plan would require considerable work over the

holidays

and

delays

the

hearing

on

the

Motion.

Plaintiffs also contend the scheduling in the other cases should
not affect the ability of Defendants' counsel to proceed in this
case because not all of the counsel in this case are involved in
In a subsequent Notice,

the other cases.

Plaintiffs also assert

Defendants' actions indicate they are simply seeking an extended
delay in this case.
Defendants'

counsel's scheduling conflicts with other cases

are of little persuasion to this Court
deadline.

in moving the response

The number of lawyers involved in this case fills the

first nineteen pages of the docket sheet when printed in this case.
Not all are necessary to adequately and zealously represent their
clients

in

all

of

the

cases.

This

basis

for

extension

is

unfounded.
This Court is, however, somewhat sympathetic with the second
justification for extension.

The proposed class in this case is

not defined by Plaintiffs simply and distinctly and any confusion
caused

by

adequately

their
defend

error
class

contributes

to

certification,

obvious the error may have been.

Defendants'
however

ability

to

inadvertent

or

While it is somewhat disputed as

to when the confusion and error was clarified and resolved, a two

3

week

delay

given
As

evident.

a

the

communications

result,

the

Court

between
will

the

afford

parties

was

Defendants

an

additional fourteen days from the original response date to file
their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiffs will be afforded an equal extension to the date for
reply and the hearing window provided by the Plan will be extended
by the same period of time.
schedule

lS

unworkable

Should Plaintiffs determined that this

due

to

the

holidays,

this

Court

will

entertain a timely motion to extend their reply deadline for a
reasonable period.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Expedited Motion to
Enlarge the Due Date for Their Opposition to Class Certification
filed September 26, 2011

(Docket Entry #406)

is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs'
Motion

for

Class

Certification

no

later

NOVEMBER

8,

2011.

Plaintiffs shall file their reply by DECEMBER 23, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

~day of

October, 2011.

JUDGE

4