Veljanoski v. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. et al

Filing 94

STIPULATION AND ORDER re parties' 93 Stipulated Motion for Partial Amendment of Scheduling Order, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12 In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC. CASE NO.: C16-1069 RSM STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER PURSUANT TO LCR 7(j) AND 10(g) AND FCRP 16(b)(4) FOR PARTIAL AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(j) (for relief from a deadline), Local Civil Rule 10(g) 21 (stipulated motions), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) (for modification of a 22 scheduling order), Defendants Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Hans Bishop, Dr. Steven Harr, and Dr. 23 Mark J. Gilbert (collectively, “Defendants”), and Lead Plaintiff Gilbert Hoang Nguyen and 24 proposed class representative Susan Tan hereby submit this stipulated motion requesting that the 25 Court partially modify the Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) Scheduling Order Regarding Class 26 Certification Motion (Dkt. No. 80; the “Scheduling Order”) to allow for expert discovery in 27 connection with the class certification motion, and to extend the time for filing the response and STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM DEADLINE & FOR CLASS CERT. BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO. C16-1069 RSM -1- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699 1 reply memoranda. Further, the parties propose that the motion for class certification be filed on 2 September 15, 2017 (as opposed to October 2, 2017). Filing the motion earlier will help allow 3 sufficient time for expert depositions and briefing without causing any undue delay in the case 4 overall. These modifications would not disturb the Court’s existing deadlines for the completion 5 of fact discovery relating to class certification (September 1, 2017). 6 I. Background 7 On July 21, 2017, the Court issued the Scheduling Order setting two deadlines: a 8 deadline of September 1, 2017 for completion of discovery on class certification, and a deadline 9 of October 2, 2017 for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 40 at 1. The 10 Scheduling Order provided that the class certification motion be noted on the fourth Friday after 11 filing and service, “unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply 12 memoranda.” After the Court issued the Scheduling Order, the parties met and conferred, and Plaintiffs 13 14 confirmed that they intend to support their motion for class certification with a report from an 15 expert witness. Defendants likewise confirmed that, depending on the content of the motion for 16 class certification and Plaintiffs’ expert report, Defendants also intend to file an expert report in 17 support of their opposition to the motion for class certification. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 II. Good Cause Exists To Partially Modify The Scheduling Order To Allow Expert Depositions After The Class Certification Motion Is Filed Good cause exists here to partially modify the Scheduling Order to allow the parties to depose one another’s experts after the motion for class certification is filed. In securities class actions such as this, the parties typically rely on expert testimony both in support of and in opposition to the motion for class certification. See, e.g., In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 273 F.R.D. 586, 609 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (noting that expert testimony is frequently used for class certification motions in securities class actions). Here, the parties have confirmed through a meet and confer that they intend to support, and oppose, class certification STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM DEADLINE & FOR CLASS CERT. BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO. C16-1069 RSM -2- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699 1 with the assistance of experts. The parties agree that they will submit reports of such experts at 2 the time of the class certification motion (for plaintiffs) and opposition to class certification (for 3 defendants). The parties further agree that they should have the opportunity to depose each 4 other’s class certification expert. The parties cannot feasibly exchange expert reports prior to 5 preparation and filing of their respective briefs in support of and in opposition to the class 6 certification motion. Likewise, the parties cannot depose one another’s expert prior to receiving 7 the expert’s report and the brief in support of which the expert report is offered. Therefore, the 8 parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to partially modify the Scheduling Order to 9 include a period for expert depositions after their respective motion papers and accompanying 10 expert report(s) have been filed. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 11 Cir. 1992) (district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite 12 the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”) (internal citation omitted). 13 Further, in light of the need for expert depositions in connection with class certification, 14 the parties respectfully request that the Court enter a schedule that allows the parties time 15 following the depositions to file their opposition and reply briefs. The Scheduling Order 16 contemplates that the parties may agree to deadlines for the opposition and reply briefs that differ 17 from the default deadlines in the local rules. Dkt. No. 80 at 1. The parties met and conferred 18 regarding the time frame for the briefing of the motion for class certification and agree that, 19 given the need for analysis and rebuttal of expert reports and the potential complexity of the 20 issues involved, the normal briefing schedule set forth in the local rules will not allow adequate 21 time for the parties to prepare the opposition and reply briefs. In order to allow for prompt 22 completion of briefing on the class certification motion, however, the parties have agreed to 23 move the deadlines up such that Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification on 24 September 15, 2017 rather than October 2, 2017. The parties respectfully submit that the 25 proposed briefing and expert deposition schedule is reasonable and, because the motion for class 26 certification will be filed two weeks earlier, the proposed schedule will not cause undue delay. 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM DEADLINE & FOR CLASS CERT. BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO. C16-1069 RSM -3- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699 1 2 Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter a modified scheduling order as follows: 3 September 15, 2017 Deadline for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 4 October 6, 2017 Deadline for Defendants to depose Plaintiffs’ expert regarding expert report submitted in connection with Motion for Class Certification October 20, 2017 Deadline for Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Class Certification November 3, 2017 Deadline for Plaintiffs to depose Defendants’ expert regarding expert report submitted in connection with Opposition to Motion for Class Certification November 17, 2017 Deadline for Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of Motion for Class Certification 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 14, 2017 15 16 17 18 s/ Gregory L. Watts Gregory L. Watts, WSBA #43995 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699 gwatts@wsgr.com Nina F. Locker, pro hac vice Ignacio E. Salceda, pro hac vice Joni Ostler, pro hac vice 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tel: (650) 849-3457 Fax: (650) 493-6811 nlocker@wsgr.com isalceda@wsgr.com jostler@wsgr.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 Daniel Slifkin Karin A. DeMasi Lauren M. Rosenberg CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 25 26 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM DEADLINE & FOR CLASS CERT. BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO. C16-1069 RSM -4- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699 Tel: (212) 474-1000 Fax: (212) 474-3700 dslifkin@cravath.com kdemasi@cravath.com lrosenberg@cravath.com 1 2 3 Attorney for Defendants Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Hans E. Bishop, Steven D. Harr, and Mark J. Gilbert 4 5 6 s/ Cliff Cantor 7 8 9 By: Cliff Cantor, WSBA # 17893 LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Tel: (425) 868-7813 Fax: (425) 732-3752 cliff.cantor@outlook.com Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel 10 11 12 13 14 15 POMERANTZ LLP Patrick V. Dahlstrom Leigh H. Smollar Omar Jafri Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com lsmollar@pomlaw.com ojafri@pomlaw.com 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman J. Alexander Hood II 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com 23 24 25 26 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM DEADLINE & FOR CLASS CERT. BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO. C16-1069 RSM -5- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699 Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel 1 2 3 4 5 Pursuant to stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 DATED: August 15, 2017 8 9 A 10 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM DEADLINE & FOR CLASS CERT. BRIEFING SCHEDULE NO. C16-1069 RSM -6- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 Fax: (206) 883-2699

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?