Filed: Jun. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2019
Summary: Order NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . This case involves both putative collective action and class action claims. See Docket No. 1. Because the parties' initial discovery plan did not address those aspects of the case, the Court instructed the parties to go back to the drawing board and to present a discovery plan that did. Docket No. 27. The amended discovery plan still left much to be desired, see Docket No. 36, so the Court set a scheduling hearing, see Docket No. 37. Unfortuna
Summary: Order NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . This case involves both putative collective action and class action claims. See Docket No. 1. Because the parties' initial discovery plan did not address those aspects of the case, the Court instructed the parties to go back to the drawing board and to present a discovery plan that did. Docket No. 27. The amended discovery plan still left much to be desired, see Docket No. 36, so the Court set a scheduling hearing, see Docket No. 37. Unfortunat..
More
Order
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
This case involves both putative collective action and class action claims. See Docket No. 1. Because the parties' initial discovery plan did not address those aspects of the case, the Court instructed the parties to go back to the drawing board and to present a discovery plan that did. Docket No. 27. The amended discovery plan still left much to be desired, see Docket No. 36, so the Court set a scheduling hearing, see Docket No. 37. Unfortunately, the scheduling hearing proved similarly insufficient to enable the issuance of a scheduling order in this case.1
Because the parties' positions have not been sufficiently explained, the amended discovery plan will be DENIED without prejudice. A second amended discovery plan must be filed by July 8, 2019. In addition to the default requirements in Local Rule 26-1, the second amended discovery plan must provide a deadline for filing a motion for conditional certification of the collective action or must provide an explanation why such a deadline should not be set.2 To the extent the parties continue to seek phased discovery with damages discovery to be conducted in Phase II, the second amended discovery plan must explain why phasing discovery in that manner is unlikely to result in insufficient discovery for final certification purposes and/or wasted resources in potentially revisiting final certification rulings after Phase II discovery has been completed.3 To the extent the parties continue to seek a scheduling order that does not set any deadlines for Phase II given the expected pendency of motion practice at the conclusion of Phase I, the second amended discovery plan must explain why it is appropriate to preemptively stay Phase II discovery in light of that anticipated motion practice.4 Lastly, the second amended discovery plan must explain whether discovery will be conducted with respect to the plaintiffs who opt-in and, if so, the scope of that discovery. See Cranney v. Carriage Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 2457912, at *2-3 (D. Nev. June 16, 2008); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1146-47 (D. Nev. 2015).
Counsel must carefully review the requirements and procedures for litigating an FLSA collective action and a class action before filing the second amended discovery plan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
