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)

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]