Opinion
C21-01220-RSM
07-12-2023
RICK DAVIS, SR., MATHEW KOOHNS, and BRETT A. LOCKHART, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly shared, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF WASHINGTON, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
ORDER RE SUBMISSION CONCERNING CASE SCHEDULE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Submission Concerning Case Schedule. Dkt. #39. On April 14, 2023, the Court issued its decision denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #35. Since then, the parties have met and conferred to discuss discovery and the case schedule. Dkt. #39 at 1. The parties now submit their respective proposals for a case schedule. Id.
The parties generally agree about a proposed schedule through class certification, but diverge thereafter. Plaintiffs seek entry of a scheduling order that tracks to and locks in the March 2025 trial date provided to the parties by the Court. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiffs believe that basing the schedule on a fixed trial date will encourage the parties to litigate efficiently and cause the case to proceed to trial more quickly. Defendants propose a schedule under which, after the Court issues a decision on any class certification motion, the parties would confer to develop a schedule for the next phase(s) of the case. Id. at 2. Defendants propose deferring setting a trial date until after the Court issues its rulings on dispositive motions, or in the alternative that any trial occur at least three months after any decision on dispositive motions (or as soon thereafter as the Court is available).
“A stay is not a matter of right. It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion that is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). In considering a request for a stay, factors weighed by the Court may include “‘the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.'” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The moving party bears the burden to show a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).
Here, Defendants argue the Court should stay discovery and other pretrial deadlines pending the resolution of any class certification motion because “it is premature to set a trial date before the Court has ruled on class certification or dispositive motions, which could have a significant impact on the scope of any trial in this case.” Dkt. #39 at 2. While Defendants may prefer a particular order of resolution, they do not demonstrate that the orderly course of justice would be better served through imposition of a stay. Defendants fail to establish a stay in this matter would be appropriate or warranted at this time. The Court therefore ORDERS the following case schedule, keeping the current expected trial Dated:
12/15/2023 Substantial completion of fact discovery
1/12/2024 Disclosure of Plaintiffs' class certification expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony.
1/26/2024 Class certification motion and service of Plaintiffs' classcertification expert report (if any)
2/23/2024 Disclosure of Defendants' class certification expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony.
3/08/2024 Opposition to class certification and service of Defendants' classcertification expert report (if any)
4/5/2024 Reply to class certification and service of rebuttal classcertification expert report (if any)
7/5/2024 Substantial completion of any supplemental fact discovery
7/26/2024 Plaintiffs' merits expert reports due
8/23/2024 Defendants' merits expert reports due
9/20/2024 Close of expert discovery
10/18/2024 Close of all discovery; dispositive motion(s) filed
11/22/2024 Opposition(s) to dispositive motion(s)
12/13/2024 Reply in support of dispositive motion(s)
1/17/2025 Plaintiffs' pretrial statement
1/27/2025 Defendants' pretrial statement
2/20/2025 Proposed pretrial order
3/25/2025 Trial begins (est. 10 trial days)