Gunter v. United Federal Credit Union, 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160603f72
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2016
Summary: Stipulation for Extension of Time WILLIAM G. COBB , Magistrate Judge . Stipulation for Extension of Time Plaintiff Tonya Gunter ("Gunter") and defendant United Federal Credit Union ("United") (United and Gunter are collectively referred to as "the Parties") by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate for the Court to enter an Order amending the Scheduling Order (ECF 43). As the Parties previously informed the Court, this is a complex consumer class action case that require
Summary: Stipulation for Extension of Time WILLIAM G. COBB , Magistrate Judge . Stipulation for Extension of Time Plaintiff Tonya Gunter ("Gunter") and defendant United Federal Credit Union ("United") (United and Gunter are collectively referred to as "the Parties") by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate for the Court to enter an Order amending the Scheduling Order (ECF 43). As the Parties previously informed the Court, this is a complex consumer class action case that requires..
More
Stipulation for Extension of Time
WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.
Stipulation for Extension of Time
Plaintiff Tonya Gunter ("Gunter") and defendant United Federal Credit Union ("United") (United and Gunter are collectively referred to as "the Parties") by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate for the Court to enter an Order amending the Scheduling Order (ECF 43). As the Parties previously informed the Court, this is a complex consumer class action case that requires extensive discovery not only with respect to written discovery, documents production and depositions, but also to the defendant credit union's customer account database, which as a result of several mergers, involves multiple complex software platforms, requiring substantial expert witness involvement. United has gathered approximately 7,700 documents consisting of approximately 450,000 pages that are responsive to the 63 requests for production of documents that Plaintiffs propounded. Discovery on class issues prior to the filing of a motion for class certification has taken longer than expected, and indeed longer than a typical complex credit union overdraft fee case, and therefore, Plaintiff has granted an extension for Defendant to respond to her request for production of documents and special interrogatories from March 31 to May 27, 2016. Because of this additional complexity and the volume of documents with respect to discovery, the parties believe that they need additional time before Plaintiff can prepare a class certification motion. The parties submit the following deadlines:
1. June 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. — Telephone status conference with the Court;
2. August 31, 2016 — Deadline to add parties, conduct class certification discovery, and to file a class certification motion;
3. October 14, 2016 — Deadline for Defendant to file an opposition to the class certification motion;
4. November 18, 2016 — Deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply to the opposition to the class certification motion.
If obstacles arise in meeting the above deadlines, then the parties are to discuss those issue with the Court by setting up a status conference call with the Court or raising the issues at the above-mentioned telephone status conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
It is further ordered that the parties shall file a joint status report on or before June 14, 2016.
Source: Leagle
