Opinion
Case No. 5-08-CV-00868 (RMW)
03-27-2013
FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY SCHOLL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT (a/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. ( pro hac vice ) STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Janet Lindner Spielberg (SBN 221926) LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. (pro hac vice)
STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE
PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
Janet Lindner Spielberg (SBN 221926)
LAW OFFICES OF JANET
LINDNER SPIELBERG
CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER:
(1) EXTENDING THE NUMBER OF
DEPOSITIONS PER SIDE TO 25; and
(2) EXTENDING THE REMAINING
DEADLINES IN THE ACTION BY FOUR
(4) MONTHS
Plaintiffs Felton A. Spears, Jr. and Sidney Scholl (collectively "Plaintiffs"), and Defendant eAppraiseIT, LLC ("EA"), by and through their respective counsel of record and pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, enter into the following stipulation for an order (1) granting leave of Court from Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) to allow each side to take up to twenty-five (25) depositions in this action; and (2) to extend the remaining deadlines in the action by four (4) months pursuant to the schedule detailed below.
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2012, the Court Granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of Plaintiffs' single remaining claim under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a), certifying a Class of "All consumers in California and throughout the United States who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from Washington Mutual Bank, FA in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT." Dkt. No. 249, p. 12.
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, the Court entered a Revised Amended Order Regarding Class Notice, Appointment of Lead Counsel, and Pre-Trial Scheduling setting forth deadlines for distribution of Class Notice, merits discovery cutoff, expert reports, supplemental and rebuttal expert reports, dispositive motions, mediation and trial. Dkt. No. 260, p. 3. There has been no prior extension of any of the deadlines set forth in this Order.
WHEREAS, the Parties have been actively conducting discovery in this action and have identified dozens of fact witnesses with potentially relevant information that the Parties would like to depose prior to a trial in this action. These fact witnesses include dozens of individuals who are not currently affiliated with either Party, including former employees of Defendant, and former employees of Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. ("WaMu"), an alleged co-conspirator in this action.
WHEREAS, good cause exists for leave from Fed. R. Civ. P. 30's limit of ten (10) depositions per side given the size of this case, the number and size of the parties and non-parties with potentially relevant information, and the number of individuals with potentially relevant information. Indeed, in the Order certifying the Class, the Court acknowledged the significant "volume and complexity of the evidence required" for trial of this class action. Dkt. No. 249, p. 11.
WHEREAS, based upon discovery to date, the Parties believe 25 fact witness depositions per side (with cross-notices not counting against that limit), plus the depositions of any proffered experts, will allow them to properly prepare their cases for trial, especially given that the Parties anticipate their requested fact witnesses will overlap and the total number of fact witness depositions in this action will be less than 50.
WHEREAS, given that most of the fact witnesses to be deposed are not affiliated with either Party, the Parties will have to issue subpoenas for their testimony which, due to coordinating schedules, could take several months to complete.
WHEREAS, the Parties have also each issued subpoenas to J.P.Morgan Chase, N.A. ("Chase"). Chase is the entity that purchased all of the Class members' loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Company ("FDIC") after WaMu went into receivership. The Parties each seek documents relating to over 200,000 putative Class members' loans. While the Parties have been working with Chase for several months regarding the production of the information requested, Chase has not yet produced the documents the Parties have requested due to the alleged number of records involved and alleged logistical issues.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have issued subpoenas to additional third parties for documents relevant to the issues in this action, such as the FDIC and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and are working with those third parties for the production of those documents.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have requested additional documents from EA that EA is in the process of preparing to produce. These documents include documents it received from the FDIC in another action between those entities that the FDIC has designated as being "confidential." Due to the "confidential" designation of the documents in the other action, EA is working with the FDIC for consent to allow production of the materials in Plaintiffs' case which may involve a modification to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 177) entered in this action to protect the privacy of borrowers should the FDIC deem it necessary.
WHEREAS, in addition to the above outstanding discovery issues, on November 2, 2012, EA filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint against the FDIC which the Court has not yet resolved. Dkt. No. 266.
WHEREAS, the Parties cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 283 and 286) to narrow the issues at trial, and those motions are currently scheduled for oral argument on March 29, 2013.
WHEREAS, until the Court resolves EA's Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint, and the Parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, there are unresolved issues as to the parties in the case and the scope of the Parties' claims.
WHEREAS, given the number of depositions to be completed, the production of documents from and through third parties to be completed, and the unresolved issues regarding the parties and the claims at issue for trial, good cause exists to extend the current deadlines by four (4) months to complete discovery and prepare this action for trial.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, that:
1. Plaintiffs and EA each may take up to twenty-five (25) fact witness depositions in this action, and the deposition of any proffered expert;
2. The pending deadlines for merits discovery cutoff, expert reports, supplemental and rebuttal expert reports, dispositive motions, other motions, pretrial conference, pre-trial briefs and trial date are extended by four (4) months pursuant to the below schedule:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Event ¦Prior ¦New ¦ ¦ ¦Deadline¦Deadline ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Merits discovery cutoff ¦May 13, ¦September¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦13, 2013 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Expert reports ¦June 12,¦October ¦ ¦ ¦2013 ¦14, 2013 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Supplemental and rebuttal expert reports ¦November¦March 11,¦ ¦ ¦11, 2013¦2014 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Expert discovery cutoff (including any discovery relating ¦December¦April 30,¦ ¦to or arising from Plaintiffs' aggregate inflation ¦30, 2013¦2014 ¦ ¦analysis) ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Mediation ¦January ¦May 29, ¦ ¦ ¦29, 2014¦2014 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Dispositive motion cutoff ¦February¦June 13, ¦ ¦ ¦12, 2014¦2014 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Other motion cutoff ¦March ¦July 14, ¦ ¦ ¦14, 2014¦2014 ¦ ¦(other than motions in limine) ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Pretrial conference (hearing on motions in limine, agreed ¦May 1, ¦ ¦ ¦jury instructions and verdicl forms, proposed voir dire ¦2014 ¦September¦ ¦questions) ¦ ¦4, 2014 ¦ ¦ ¦t ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Pretrial briefs ¦May 28, ¦September¦ ¦ ¦2014 ¦29, 2014 ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+--------+---------¦ ¦Trial date ¦June 23,¦October ¦ ¦ ¦2014 ¦20, 2014 ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC
By: ________________
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Co-Lead Class Counsel
LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
By: _______________
Janet Lindner Spielberg, Co-Lead Class Counsel
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
By: _________________
A. Matthew Ashley, Attorneys for DEFENDANT
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge