Roberts et al v. C.R. England et al

Filing 442

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' 440 Motion to Stay Further Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Approval to Depose Absent Class Members Pending Consideration of Objection is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part without prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 2/22/18. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
CHARLES ROBERTS, an individual, and
KENNETH MCKAY, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated,

MEMORANDUM
DECISION & ORDER

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:12-CV-00302
v.
C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation;
OPPORTUNITY LEASING, INC., a Utah
corporation; and HORIZON TRUCK
SALES AND LEASING, LLC, a Utah
Limited Liability Corporation,

Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Defendants.

On November 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Wells granted in part Defendants’ request to
take absent class member depositions, and ordered Defendants to “propose a statistically
significant sample size based on the work of an expert in this case.”1 Defendants submitted the
Declaration of Ted Tatos, which includes a sample size analysis and states that a sample size of
96 drivers in this case would fall within “commonly accepted precision and confidence levels.”2
Plaintiffs objected to Magistrate Judge Wells’s Order,3 and the court ordered Defendants to
respond to Plaintiffs’ Objection.4
Plaintiff Kenneth McKay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
(“Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion to Stay Further Consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Approval
1

Dkt. 405, p. 12.
Dkt. 432-1 ¶ 28 (“Submission Pursuant to Order”).
3
Dkt. 410.
4
Dkt. 438.
2

to Depose Absent Class Members.5 Plaintiffs’ Motion is well-taken. The court stays further
consideration of Defendants’ Motion seeking leave to take absent class member depositions6 and
Defendants’ Submission Pursuant to Order,7 pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ Objection in the
first instance.8
Plaintiffs ask the court in the alternative for leave to respond to Defendants’ Submission
Pursuant to the Order regarding the appropriate number of absent class member depositions. The
request is DENIED without prejudice to seek leave once Plaintiffs’ Objection is resolved.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Further Consideration of
Defendants’ Motion for Approval to Depose Absent Class Members Pending Consideration of
Objection9 is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY

5

Dkt. 440.
Dkt. 335.
7
Dkt. 432-1.
8
Dkt. 410.
9
Dkt. 440.
6