Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Matthew Edwards, et al., Individually and v. National Milk Producers Federation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


February 13, 2013

MATTHEW EDWARDS, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS, AND
v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, AKA
COOPERATIVES WORKING TOGETHER; DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.; LAND O'LAKES, INC.;
DAIRYLEA COOPERATIVE INC.; AND AGRI- MARK, INC., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

STEVE W. BERMAN (admitted pro hac vice) GEORGE W. SAMPSON (admitted pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com Email: george@hbsslaw.com -and-ELAINE T. BYSZEWSKI (SBN 222304) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] Counsel for the Proposed Class

REVISED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER

Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Date: February 8, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. 23 Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor 24

Dairylea Cooperative Inc.; and Agri-Mark, Inc., (collectively, the "Parties") jointly submit the 4 following revised case management statement. 5 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, Plaintiffs and Defendants National Milk Producers Federation, Cooperatives Working Together; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Land O'Lakes, Inc.; 3

1.JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

a.Subject Matter Jurisdiction

i. Plaintiffs' Statement

Pursuant to the Court's Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint Dkt. No. 123 ("Order"), dated October 30, 2012, the Court has jurisdiction over 10 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss 15 on those grounds. 16

Plaintiffs' claims.*fn1

ii. Defendants' Statement

Defendants have asserted and maintain that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, as 7 U.S.C. § 292 grants exclusive or primary jurisdiction over such claims to the 14

b.Personal Jurisdiction and Venue

No party contests personal jurisdiction or venue.

c.Service

Defendants have been served with process and have appeared.

2.FACTS

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

In 2003, Defendant National Milk Producers Federation ("NMPF") founded Defendant Cooperatives Working Together ("CWT"), whose members include Defendants Dairy Farmers of 24 America, Land O'Lakes, Dairylea, and Agri-Mark, for the sole stated purpose "to strengthen and 25 stabilize milk prices." From 2003 to 2010, Defendants conspired to limit the production of raw 26 27 farm milk through ten rounds of premature "herd retirements" in order to increase the price of raw 2 farm milk and drive smaller dairy farmers out of business.*fn2 CWT used nearly all of the revenue 3 created by the mandatory assessments of its members to pay farmers to prematurely slaughter their 4 entire dairy herds.*fn3 For example, in 2009, CWT member assessments generated $219 million in 5 revenues for CWT, which spent $217 million on herd reductions.*fn4 By 2010 CWT had eliminated 6 over 2,800 dairy farms from the market.*fn5 The herd retirement program was a huge success for 7 Defendants, who were responsible for removing over 500,000 cows from production, reducing the 8 nation's milk supply by approximately 10 billion pounds, increasing cumulative milk revenues by 9 $9.55 billion, and thereby increasing the price of milk for consumers.*fn6 Plaintiffs are indirect 10 purchasers who seek to recover excess monies paid for milk and other fresh milk products. 11

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants deny many of the factual allegations in the Complaint regarding the purpose, 13 operation, and effect of CWT and the herd retirement program. Defendants maintain that, in any 14 event, the conduct attributed to them in the Complaint is exempt from liability under the Capper-15 Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 291-292, Section 6 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 17, and also state 16 law. Defendants also assert that (a) the filed rate doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims for damages, 17 which assertion the Court rejected at the motion to dismiss stage, and (b) the doctrine of laches 18 applies to bar Plaintiffs' claims. 19 20

3.LEGAL ISSUES

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

Plaintiffs believe the primary legal issues are as follows:

resolved by this Court. First, this Court determined that the U.S. Department of Agriculture does 17 not have exclusive or primary jurisdiction over this action.*fn7 Second, this Court determined that 18 the filed-rate doctrine does not bar Plaintiffs' damage claims.*fn8

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants suggest that the legal issues include, but are not limited to:

i. Whether Plaintiffs' state antitrust, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims are barred by state statutory exemptions and immunities for agricultural cooperatives;

i. Capper-Volstead's § 1 antitrust exemption lists "processing, preparing for market, handling, and marketing" but omits producing. Are Defendants' concerted production restraints exempt from antitrust scrutiny under Capper- Volstead?

ii. If Defendants' production restraints are not exempt under Capper-Volstead, are Defendants per se liable for conspiring to raise, stabilize, fix, and/or maintain prices of farm milk sold in the U.S. by restricting farm milk production through herd retirements?

iii. If so, are Defendants therefore in violation of state antitrust and/or unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, as well as the common law of unjust enrichment in multiple states?

iv. Is this case appropriate for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23?

Plaintiffs note that two of the legal issues listed by Defendants below have already been

ii. Whether the Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 291-292, and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 17, bar Plaintiffs' claims;

iii. Whether any class of indirect purchasers may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

iv. Whether Plaintiffs' damage claims are barred by the filed-rate doctrine; v. Whether the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over this action;

vi. Whether Defendants' alleged conduct violated any of the asserted state antitrust statutes or unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, or the common law of unjust enrichment;

vii. Whether Plaintiffs can prove that Defendants caused their alleged injuries and, if so, the existence and extent of any resulting damages; and

viii. Whether Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred in whole or in part.

4.MOTIONS

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on December 22, 2011. In its July 19, 2012 Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading "to 16 clarify the facts underlying their theory of predatory conduct." See Order (July 19, 2012 (Dkt. No. 17 105), at 2. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on August 20, 2012, 18 and Defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In its October 30, 2012 Order, the Court denied 19

Defendants' motion to dismiss without addressing whether Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled 20 predatory conduct. See Order (Oct. 30, 2012) (Dkt. No. 123). In addition to Defendants' motions 21 to dismiss, there have been various administrative motions. 22

24 judgment on the ground that Defendants' production restraints are not exempt from antitrust 25 liability under the Capper-Volstead Act. 26 27 28

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for class certification and a motion for partial summary

3 summary judgment. As explained below, Defendants believe that there are certain potentially 4 dispositive matters that the Court should consider before class certification, and they intend to seek 5 leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment on those matters shortly. In addition, 6

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants expect to oppose Plaintiffs' planned motions for class certification and partial

Defendants recently submitted a motion to transfer to this Court an action brought by a purported 7 direct purchaser, Brenda Blakeman v. National Milk Producers Federation et al., Case No. 3:12-8 cv-01246-GPM-PMF (S.D. Ill.), which was filed on December 7, 2012 in the U.S. District Court 9 for the Southern District of Illinois, see Paragraph 10, infra. 10

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

Plaintiffs do not anticipate filing an amended pleading at this time but may seek leave to do so in the future based on facts learned in discovery or to conform the operative complaint to their 14 motion for class certification or any order from the Court granting same. 15

17 filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. In an Order dated July 19, 2012, the Court granted 18

Plaintiffs leave to amend and set an August 10, 2012 deadline for plaintiffs "to clarify the facts 19 underlying their theory of predatory conduct." See Order (July 19, 2012) (Dkt. No. 105), at 2. 20

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on August 20, 2012. In an Order 21 22 dated October 30, 2012, the Court noted that Plaintiffs had not pled facts in support of a theory of

fraudulent concealment, and set a deadline of November 15, 2012 for Plaintiffs to amend their 24 pleading to include such facts. See Order (Oct. 30, 2012) (Dkt. No. 123), at 10 n.6. Plaintiffs did 25 not further amend the complaint by that date. Plaintiffs must seek leave under Federal Rule of 26

Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) before any further amendments may be made. 27 28

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

b. Defendants' Statement

Plaintiffs commenced this action on September 26, 2011. On October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs Electronically Stored Information ("ESI Guidelines"), and that they have met and conferred 4 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps 5 taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. The parties have 6 come to agreement on a stipulation and proposed preservation order, which they concurrently file 7 with the Court for approval. 8

The Parties are making their initial disclosures on February 1, 2013, in accordance with the 10 agreed upon schedule further described in Section 17 below.11

The parties anticipate written discovery (including document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission) as well as deposition discovery. The Parties also anticipate that it will be necessary to engage in some third-party discovery. Plaintiffs have recently served document requests and requests for admissions.

6.EVIDENCE PRESERVATION

The Parties certify that they have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of agreed upon schedule further described in Section 17 below. 19

7.DISCLOSURES

8.DISCOVERY

21 following: the creation and purpose of CWT; its membership; annual assessments collected by 22 CWT and the annuals payments made relating to herd retirements; the effect of CWT's programs 23 on the supply of milk; the effect of CWT's programs on the number of milk farms; the effect of 24

CWT's programs on milk prices; communications between CWT and its members regarding the 25 price of milk; CWT's policies of requiring any farmer participating in the herd retirement program 26 to retire all cows wherever located and to withdraw entirely from dairy farming for at least one 27 28

Discovery Plan

a.Initial Disclosures (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)(3)(A))

The Parties made their initial disclosures on February 1, 2013, in accordance with the

b.Subjects, Schedule, and Phasing of Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)(3)(B))

Plaintiffs believe discovery is needed on numerous subjects, including but not limited to the year; and any attempts to impede the ability of a farmer who had participated in the herd retirement 2 program from producing and/or selling milk again. Defendants believe discovery is needed on, 3 among other subjects, each of the factors relating to class certification under Rule 23, plaintiff's 4 alleged status and activities as "indirect purchasers," the relationship, if any, between plaintiffs and 5 any absent putative class members, and each of the defendants, and whether plaintiffs sustained 6 any antitrust injury or other damage. 7

Discovery has commenced and will proceed in accordance with the parties' stipulated 8 schedule (below). The parties agree that document discovery necessary for the class certification 9 motion should be concluded by August 1, 2013. 10 11 proceedings in the purported direct purchaser action Brenda Blakeman v. National Milk Producers 12

Federation et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-01246-GPM-PMF (S.D. Ill.), an action that Defendants have 13 moved to transfer to this Court from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, see 14 Paragraph 10, infra. 15

17 proposed orders to govern the preservation and discovery of electronically stored information 18 ("ESI"). The parties have come to agreement on a stipulation and proposed preservation order and 19 a stipulation and proposed ESI protocol, which they concurrently file with the Court for approval. 20

The parties agree to meet and confer regarding non-custodial ESI systems and the terms of a search 21 term protocol by February 28, 2013.*fn9

Defendants also respectfully suggest that the Court coordinate discovery in this case with

c.Electronically Stored Information (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)(3)(C))

Consistent with the Court's model order, the Parties have been negotiating the terms of 3 may allocate those among fact witnesses and/or 30(b)(6) witnesses. A 7-hour time limitation will 4 apply to each noticed deposition. Defendants together may jointly notice the deposition of each 5 named plaintiff in this action. These deposition numbers are exclusive of experts and third party 6 depositions. 7

There are currently no issues about claims of privilege.

d.Depositions

The parties agree that Plaintiffs may notice up to 10 depositions for each Defendant, and

e.Issues About Claims of Privilege (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)(3)(D)) 10 of Civil Procedure at this time but reserve the right to seek to modify these limitations if it becomes 11 necessary. 12

14 protection of confidential documents and the treatment of inadvertently produced privileged 15 materials. The parties have come to agreement on a stipulation and proposed protective order, 16 which they concurrently file with the Court for approval. 17

antitrust statutes and unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, as well as claims for unjust 21 enrichment. Each state class would be defined as all residents who purchased for their own use and 22 not for resalemilk or fresh milk products (including cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage cheese, 23 cream cheese, and sour cream). As more fully set forth in section 17 below, Plaintiffs propose to 24 move for class certification by September 15, 2013. 25

If custodians' names cannot be searched on the system metadata in certain shared or network drives, systems, or servers, the Parties should identify these and provide additional information 27 regarding the shared or network drives, system, or servers to be searched for ESI on a non-custodial basis. The parties agree to exchange this information by February 28, 2013. 28

f.Modification of the Discovery Rules (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)(3)(E))

The Parties do not intend to enlarge the discovery limitations imposed by the Federal Rules

g.Other Orders (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f)(3)(F))

The Parties have negotiated the terms of a stipulation and proposed order regarding the

9.CLASS ACTIONS

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

Plaintiffs intend to move for certification of 27 state classes, asserting claims under state California. A related action was filed on December 7, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the 6 No. 3:12-cv-01246-GPM-PMF (S.D. Ill.), by a purported direct purchaser of milk products. 8

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants expect to oppose Plaintiffs' planned motion for class certification.

10.RELATED CASES

There are no pending related cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Southern District of Illinois, Brenda Blakeman v. National Milk Producers Federation et al., Case 7

Defendants recently filed a motion to transfer the Blakeman action to this Court. Two related cases 9 were voluntarily dismissed, Stephen L. LaFrance Holding Inc., et al. v. National Milk Producers 10

Northern District of California on July 31, 2012, Stephen L. LaFrance Holding Inc., et al. v. 12

2012), and Mark Petersen, et al. v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-14

03186 (D. Minn. dismissed Oct. 31, 2011). Defendants note that all six of the law firms 15 representing the plaintiff in the recently filed Blakeman action also represented the plaintiffs in 16

Stephen L. LaFrance Holding, Inc. The plaintiffs in Stephen L. LaFrance Holding, Inc. voluntarily 17 dismissed their complaint after the JPML denied their motion for transfer and consolidation in the 18

Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shortly after the action was transferred to this Court.There 19 also are at least two related pending state court actions, one in Missouri, Kristie Tessandori v. 20

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Case No. 1216-CV-13257 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Jackson Cnty.), and one 21 in Kansas, Tom Williams v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Case No. 12 CV 98 (Kan. Dist. Ct.). 22

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

Plaintiffs seek all relief available under the applicable state laws, including but not limited to (a) restitution and/or damages to class members for their purchases of milk and/or fresh milk products at inflated over-order prices; (b) actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other relief as provided by statute and common law; (c) pre-judgment and post-

Federation, et al.,Case No. 2:12-cv-00070 (E.D. Pa.), transferred to the U.S. District Court for the 11 National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04142 (N.D. Cal. dismissed Aug. 23, 13

11.RELIEF

judgment interest on such monetary relief; (d) equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or 2 disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received by Defendants as a result of their unlawful 3 conduct; (e) the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and (f) all other 4 relief to which Plaintiffs and class members may be entitled at law or in equity. Plaintiffs' 5 calculation of damages is in large part dependent on information to be obtained during discovery in 6 this action. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not yet computed damages. 7

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief sought. Given that Plaintiffs 9 have not yet stated how they intend to calculate damages, it is too early for Defendants to describe 10 the bases on which they contend damages should be calculated if any liability were to be established. 11

12.SETTLEMENT AND ADR

The Parties have complied with ADR L.R. 3-5. The Parties discussed the possibility of 13 engaging in alternative dispute resolution during the meet and confer process, and preliminarily 14 agree that mediation is preferable to other forms of ADR for this case. The Parties believe that 15 settlement discussions are premature at this time. 16

13.CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

The Parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings.

14.OTHER REFERENCES

The Parties agree that this action is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration or a 20 special master. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion filed 21 by plaintiffs in Stephen L. LaFrance Holding, Inc. to centralize this action and all similar actions in 22 a single judicial district for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

c. Plaintiffs' Statement

Should additional actions regarding the same subject matter be filed against Defendants, they can file motions to transfer them to this Court, as Defendants have done with respect to the Blakeman action.

d. Defendants' Statement

Should additional actions regarding the same subject matter be filed against Defendants, 3 however, this action may then be suitable for reference to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 4

15.NARROWING OF ISSUES

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

The Parties have not identified any issues that can be currently narrowed by agreement.

Plaintiffs intend to move for class certification as soon as practicable based on Defendants' anticipated timing for production of documents. Whether Defendants' production restraints are exempt under the Capper-Volstead Act is a significant threshold issue to resolution of the lawsuit.

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants believe that the case can be narrowed significantly by considering certain discrete legal issues that can be resolved with minimal discovery, including, without limitation, whether some or all of Plaintiffs' state antitrust, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims are barred by state statutory exemptions and immunities for agricultural cooperatives.

16.EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

At this time the Parties do not believe that an expedited trial schedule is appropriate.

17.SCHEDULING

The parties stipulate to the following case management schedule: 19 Last day for Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures February 1, 2013 20 Initial Case Management Conference February 8, 2013 21 Last day to negotiate preservation order February 12, 2013 22 Last day to negotiate ESI protocol February 12, 2013 23 Last day to exchange custodian lists (including positions and dates) and information 24 sufficient to identify relevant shared or network drives, systems, or servers in which custodians' names 25 cannot be searched on the system metadata February 28, 2013 26 Last day to negotiate re a search term protocol February 28, 2013 Last day to meet and confer re custodians/shared drives March 14, 2013

Last day to commence rolling production May 1, 2013 Last day to produce documents necessary for class certification August 1, 2013 Last day for motion for class certification September 15, 2013 Last day to file updated Case Status Report December 6, 2013 Last day to file Opposition to motion for class certification December 13, 2013 Second Case Management Conference December 13, 2013 Last day to file Reply in support of motion for class certification February 21, 2014 10 Fact discovery closes February 28, 2014 11 Hearing on motion for class certification April 4, 2014 12 Last day for expert reports on merits TBD 13 Last day for depositions of experts TBD 14 Last day for responsive expert reports TBD 15 Close of expert discovery TBD 16 Last day to file dispositive motions TBD 17 Oppositions to dispositive motions TBD 18 Reply briefs in support of dispositive motions TBD 19 Hearing on dispositive motions TBD 20 Motions in limine TBD 21 Oppositions to motions to limine TBD 22 Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order TBD 23 Pre-trial Conference TBD 24 Trial TBD

18.TRIAL

26

a. Plaintiffs' Statement

Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial that they expect to last approximately three weeks.

Civil Local Rule 3-16. 6

7 other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report." 8

b. Defendants' Statement

Defendants believe it is too early to approximate the length of any trial that should occur.

19.DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

The Parties have each filed a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons as required by

Plaintiffs stated: "Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date,

Defendant National Milk Producers Federation stated: "Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16,

Defendant National Milk Producers Federation a/k/a Cooperatives Working Together, by and 10 through its undersigned counsel, certifies that as of this date, other than named parties, there is no 11 12 such interest to report."

Defendant Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. stated: "Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. is

14 unaware of any person or entity other than the named parties with a financial or other interest that 15 could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." 16

Defendant Land O'Lakes, Inc. stated: "Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, Defendant Land

O'Lakes, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, certifies that as of this date, other than the 18 19 named parties, there is no such interest to report."

Defendant Dairylea Cooperative Inc. stated: "Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, Defendant

Dairylea Cooperative Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, certifies that as of this date, 22 other than named parties, there is no such interest to report." 23

Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc. stated: "Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, certifies that as of this date, other than the named 25 party, there is no such interest to report." 26 27 28

20.OTHER MATTERS

There are no other matters at this time.

Federation

I, Elaine T. Byszewski, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.

FOR THIS CASE: 4

[PROPOSED] ORDER

BASED ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE IS ENTERED 3

Last day for Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures February 1, 2013 Initial Case Management Conference February 8, 2013 Last day to negotiate preservation order February 12, 2013 Last day to negotiate ESI protocol February 12, 2013 Last day to exchange custodian lists (including positions and dates) and information sufficient to identify relevant shared or network drives, systems, or servers in which custodians' names cannot be searched on the system metadata February 28, 2013 Last day to meet and confer re custodians/shared drives February 28, 2013 Last day to negotiate re a search term protocol February 28, 2013 Last day to meet and confer re custodians and shared drives March 14, 2013 Last day to commence rolling production May 1, 2013 Last day to produce documents necessary for class certification August 1, 2013 Last day for motion for class to file certification September 15, 2013 Last day to file updated case status report December 6, 2013 October 11 for class certification December 13, 2013 Last day to file Opposition to motion Second Case Management Conference December 13, 2013 Last day to file reply in support of motion for October 25, 2013 class certification February 21, 2014 Fact discovery closes February 28, 2014 November 15, 2013 Hearing on motion for class certification April 4, 2014 Last day for expert reports on merits TBD Last day for depositions of experts TBD

Last day for responsive expert reports TBD 2 Close of expert discovery TBD 3 Last day to file dispositive motions TBD 4 Oppositions to dispositive motions TBD 5 Reply briefs in support of dispositive motions TBD 6 Hearing on dispositive motions TBD 7 Motions in limine TBD 8 Oppositions to motions to limine TBD 9 Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order TBD 10 Pre-trial Conference TBD

Trial TBD

IT IS SO ORDERED


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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