Bliss v. CoreCivic, Inc., 2:18-cv-01280-JAD-GWF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20181214e29
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 41), filed on December 4, 2018. Defendant requests a discovery plan that is bifurcated into phases for class certification discovery and merit discovery. The Court denies Defendant's proposed bifurcated discovery plan on the basis that the merits and class certification distinction "is not always clear. Facts that are relevant to the class det
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 41), filed on December 4, 2018. Defendant requests a discovery plan that is bifurcated into phases for class certification discovery and merit discovery. The Court denies Defendant's proposed bifurcated discovery plan on the basis that the merits and class certification distinction "is not always clear. Facts that are relevant to the class dete..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 41), filed on December 4, 2018.
Defendant requests a discovery plan that is bifurcated into phases for class certification discovery and merit discovery. The Court denies Defendant's proposed bifurcated discovery plan on the basis that the merits and class certification distinction "is not always clear. Facts that are relevant to the class determination frequently overlap with those relevant to the merits of the case." Gusman v. Comcast Corp., 298 F.R.D. 592, 595 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Further, to the extent that either party believes that a discovery request is irrelevant or not proportional to the needs of the case, the party may file a motion for protective order according to the applicable governing rules.
The parties appear to agree on the deadlines for initial disclosures, ESI protocol, and to amend or add parties and the Court grants such deadlines as follows:
A. Deadline for initial disclosures: January 4, 2019
B. Deadline to file ESI protocol: December 19, 2018
C. Deadline to amend and to add parties: the later of March 1, 2019 or 60 days following an order on Defendant's pending motion to dismiss
The Court grants the discovery plan and scheduling order proposed by Plaintiff. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following discovery plan and scheduling order dates shall apply:
1. Plaintiff's disclosure of class certification expert and report: May 1, 2019
2. Defendant's disclosure of class certification rebuttal expert and report: 30 days after Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosure
3. Class certification expert discovery deadline: 60 days after Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosure
4. Filing date for motion for class certification if experts are used: 90 days after Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosure
5. Filing date for motion for class certification if Plaintiff does not rely upon an expert: May 31, 2019
6. Last date to complete fact discovery: 60 days following Court's order on class certification.
7. Deadline to file interim status report: 90 days following the Court's order on class certification.
8. Last date to disclose experts: 120 days following Court's order on class certification.
9. Last date to disclose rebuttal experts: 150 days following Court's order on class certification.
10. Last date to complete expert discovery: 180 days following Court's order on class certification.
11. Last date to file dispositive motions: 210 days following Court's order on class certification.
12. Last date file the joint pretrial order: 240 days following the Court's order on class certification.
Source: Leagle
