Ruppert, Lawrence G. v. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Fund

Filing 91

ORDER denying 85 MOTION to Strike by Plaintiffs Thomas A. Larson, Lawrence G. Ruppert. Plaintiffs have until 5/15/2009 to provide defendant with latest version of proposed notice to class members. Defendant has until 5/18/2009 to provide plaintiff with its objections. By 5/20/2009, the parties must file their joint agreed notice, or plaintiff must file and serve its proposed notice and defendant must file its objections. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/13/2009. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------L A W R E N C E G. RUPPERT and T H O M A S A. LARSON, o n behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER Plaintiffs, 0 8 - cv -1 2 7 - b b c v. A LL IA N T ENERGY CASH BALANCE PEN S IO N PLAN, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------Pursua nt to an order entered April 16, 2009, the parties have made efforts to reach an agreement regarding the terms of a proposed notice to class members. When they could n o t agree on a few matters, plaintiffs did not file their proposed notice at all, but defendant st ill filed its proposed objections and attached a copy of what it took to be plaintiffs' last draft of a proposed notice. Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike defendant's objections, dkt. # 85, arguing that the draft defendants submitted was not their latest version and that defendan t's proposed objections were not timely and therefore "waived." The parties devote a total of 17 pages to argue about who was in the right regarding the timeliness of defendant's objections; defendant even submits the 71 pages of email

correspondence and plan revisions to back up its position. The parties have gotten off track. The idea was for the parties to make an effort to agree on the language of a notice or, if that w a s not possible, to provide their opposing positions to assist the court in making a decision. Bo th parties agree that they came close to an agreement; it appears that the deadline made it impossible for them to smooth out the last few wrinkles. In that case, the proper course w ou ld have been for one or both parties to explain that briefly to the court and seek addition al time. Whatever the reasons were, there appears to be a possibility that, given a brief opportunity to iron out the details, the parties may yet reach an agreement. Rather than entertain the parties' dispute regarding the timeliness of defendant's objections, I will give th e parties until May 20, 2009 to file a joint agreed notice or, if they cannot agree on any issue, for plaintiffs to file their proposed notice and defendant to file its objections. To be clear, all defendant's objections must be submitted to plaintiff at the latest by May 18, 2009.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's objections to plaintiffs' proposed notice to the class, dkt. #85, is DENIED. Plaintiffs may have until May 15, 2009 in which to p r o v i d e defendant their latest version of a proposed notice. By May 18, 2009, defendant

2

m u st submit all its objections to plaintiffs. By May 20, 2009, the parties must file a joint agreed notice with the court, or, if they cannot agree on the wording of the notice, plaintiffs m ust file and serve their proposed notice and defendant must submit its objections. E n tered this 13t h day of May, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3