Olberg et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 96

ORDER granting PLaintiffs' 87 Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Case Schedule. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures are due on May 28, 2020; Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and e xpert disclosures are due on May 28, 2020; Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures are due on August 11, 2020; The deposition of Defendants' class certification experts must be completed by September 22, 2020; and Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is due on September 22, 2020. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JEFF OLBERG, an individual, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C18-0573-JCC

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Illinois corporation, et al.,

13
Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the case schedule

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(Dkt. No. 87). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the
Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons
explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring a putative class action suit on behalf of Washington insureds against

Defendants, asserting a variety of Washington state law claims arising from Defendants’ alleged
erroneous valuations of total loss vehicles. (See generally Dkt. No. 50.) Plaintiffs now seek a 90day extension of case scheduling deadlines related to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and
expert disclosures. (See Dkt. No. 87 at 1–2.) Plaintiffs argue there is good cause to extend the
case schedule because Defendants recently disclosed substantial amounts of discovery and

ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company caused delays by producing an incomplete list of class

2

members and failing to produce sample claims files. (See id. at 7–8.) Defendant CCC

3

Information Services Incorporated opposes Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that a 45-day extension is

4

sufficient and disputing Plaintiffs’ recitation of the parties’ discovery conduct. (See generally

5

Dkt. No. 90.) 1

6

II.

7

DISCUSSION
Under Western District of Washington’s Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3), a plaintiff must move

8

for class certification within 180 days of filing the complaint “unless otherwise ordered by the

9

court or provided by statute.” In contrast to this bright line rule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10

23(c)(1)(A) states, “At an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class

11

representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.”

12

In ABS Entertainment, Inc. v. CBS Corp., 908 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit

13

examined a similar tension between Central District of California Local Rule 23-3, which

14

requires a plaintiff to move for class certification within 90 days of filing the complaint, and

15

Rule 23(c)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit stated that the “flexible approach” of Rule 23(c)(1)(A)

16

“makes sense,” as “[t]he class action determination can only be decided after the district court

17

undertakes a ‘rigorous analysis’ of the prerequisites for certification.” Id. at 427 (quoting Wal-

18

Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 338, 350–51 (2011)). The Ninth Circuit noted that “[t]o

19
1

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time was noted for the Court’s consideration on
February 21, 2020. (See Dkt. No. 87.) Defendant Allstate did not file an opposition to Plaintiffs’
motion. Instead, on February 28, 2020, Defendant Allstate filed a surreply, stating that
“Plaintiffs’ reply brief warrants clarification from Allstate.” (Dkt. No. 93 at 1.) Plaintiff moves to
strike Defendant Allstate’s surreply pursuant to Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule
7(g). (Dkt. No. 95.)
Local Civil Rule 7(g) limits the use of surreplies to “requests to strike material contained
in or attached to a reply brief.” The rule also states that “a surreply filed for any other reason will
not be considered.” Defendant Allstate’s surreply does not ask that any material be stricken from
Plaintiffs’ reply brief. (See generally Dkt. No. 93.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Dkt.
No. 95) is GRANTED. The Court will not consider Defendant Allstate’s surreply in resolving
Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time.
ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

undertake that analysis may require discovery.” Id. (citing Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d

2

205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975)). Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit held “that the bright-line of Local Rule

3

23-3 is incompatible with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23” and reversed the district court’s

4

decision to strike the plaintiff’s class certification motion pursuant to Local Rule 23-3. Id. at 427

5

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1)).

6

Here, Plaintiffs have established that their request for additional time is necessary

7

because Defendants have recently produced substantial discovery and because Plaintiffs require

8

additional discovery to properly support their motion for class certification. (See Dkt. Nos. 87 at

9

7–8, 88 at 2–4.) The Court does not take a position on the parties’ alleged conduct during

10

discovery. (See Dkt. Nos. 87, 90, 91.) However, the Court does find that additional time is

11

necessary to enable Plaintiffs to sufficiently review the discovery produced thus far, obtain

12

outstanding discovery, conduct depositions, and prepare their class certification motion. Granting

13

Plaintiffs this time will in turn enable the Court to perform its “rigorous analysis” of Plaintiffs’

14

motion for class certification. See ABS Entertainment, 908 F.3d at 427. Given these

15

circumstances, and because the record shows that Plaintiffs have acted with due diligence but

16

cannot meet the deadlines set forth by the current case schedule, the Court finds good cause to

17

modify the case schedule. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 16(b)(6), 23(i)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

19

III.

20
21

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 87) is

GRANTED. The Court hereby sets the following case schedule:

22

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and expert disclosures are due on May 28, 2020;

23

2. The deposition of Plaintiffs’ class certification experts must be completed by August 11,

24
25
26

2020;
3. Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and expert disclosures
are due on August 11, 2020;
ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 3

1
2
3

4. The deposition of Defendants’ class certification experts must be completed by
September 22, 2020; and
5. Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion for class certification is due on September 22,

4

2020.

5

DATED this 17th day of March 2020.

A

6
7
8

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C18-0573-JCC
PAGE - 4