Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joseph Roling and Alexander Landvater v. E*Trade Securities LLC

February 2, 2011

JOSEPH ROLING AND ALEXANDER LANDVATER, INDIVIDUALS AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC,
A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND DOES 1-50, 22 INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rafey S. Balabanian

additional counsel appear on signature page

PROPOSED REVISED DISCOVERYPLAN

PROPOSED REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN

In accordance with this Court's Order of August 10, 2010 (Dkt. 53), on August 26, 2010, counsel for the Parties engaged in a meet and confer regarding the substance and scope 3 of discovery in this matter, a putative class action challenging E*TRADE's practice of 4 charging its customers "inactivity fees." As a result of the meet and confer, the Parties 5 jointly submitted a Proposed Discovery Plan that was filed with the Court on September 15, 6 Parties agree that additional time is necessary to complete discovery and, accordingly, submit 8 the following Proposed Revised Discovery Plan pursuant to that agreement:

E*TRADE has proposed that discovery should proceed in phases, with the first phase of discovery limited to issues pertaining to class certification, and the second phase of 12 discovery limited to the merits. Plaintiffs do not object to bifurcation in this matter between 13 class and merits issues. In the first phase of discovery, the Parties will limit discovery to (1) 14 the individual claims of the named Plaintiffs and (2) factual issues relevant to Rule 23.

E*TRADE has indicated that certain information regarding the named Plaintiffs' claims 16 depend on electronic information approximately 10 years old. Accordingly, the Parties 17 anticipate that 11 months is a reasonable time to search for, assemble, extract and process the 18 electronic information that might be necessary, as well as to contact potential fact witnesses 19 who might no longer be employed by E*TRADE.

Plaintiffs will file their Rule 23 motion for class certification no later than one month following the completion of such discovery. The Parties agree that E*TRADE shall have 22 approximately 40 days thereafter to file its Opposition brief, and Plaintiffs another 30 days to 23 file their Reply brief.

If the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion, discovery would proceed to the second phase, wherein the Parties may engage in discovery related to the calculation of class-26 wide damages and information required for class notification purposes. The Parties propose 2010 (Dkt. 55). The Court has not, at this time, entered the original discovery plan. The A. General Overview of Discovery Schedule 10 3 months time for this second phase.

ROPOSED REVISED DISCOVERY PLAN 2

In addition, Plaintiffs propose the following addition to the briefing schedule below (the "Proposal"):

(1) That the Court allow Plaintiffs to file an initial motion for class certification by June 1, 2011 (the "Initial Class Motion"). Plaintiffs believe the Initial Class Motion would 6 serve to focus discovery (including expert reports) in the first phase of discovery; 7

(2) E*TRADE would not file an opposition to, nor would the Court rule on, the nitial Class Motion; 9

(3) Plaintiffs would finalize and supplement the Initial Class Motion by December 1, 2011; and

(4) Briefing, including E*TRADE's opposition brief and Plaintiffs' reply brief, any argument, and Court decision, would follow according to the below schedule. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.