Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-cv-12276-AK
05-03-2024
GENESETT CORPORATION, as Trustee of the Genesett Trust Dated 10/23/01, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant.
Steven G. Sklaver Glenn C. Bridgman Halley W. Josephs SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P, Seth Ard Ryan Kirkpatrick Zach Savage SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. Julia C. O'Neil (Risley) SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. By its attorneys Timothy J. Perla Robert K. Smith Sonia Sujanani WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP, Chris Casamassima (pro hac vice forthcoming) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP, Jessica Lewis By its attorneys WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
Steven G. Sklaver Glenn C. Bridgman Halley W. Josephs SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P, Seth Ard Ryan Kirkpatrick Zach Savage SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. Julia C. O'Neil (Risley) SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. By its attorneys
Timothy J. Perla Robert K. Smith Sonia Sujanani WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP, Chris Casamassima (pro hac vice forthcoming) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP, Jessica Lewis By its attorneys WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR DISCOVERY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE
Hon. Angel Kelley United States District Judge
Plaintiff Genesett Corporation, as Trustee of the Genesett Trust Dated 10/23/01, and Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby state and agree, through their respective counsel, as follows:
1. Plaintiff served Sun Life with its First Request for Production and First Set of Interrogatories effective December 5, 2023. Sun Life's responses and objections were due January 4, 2024. Sun Life asked for an extension for its responses and objections until January 18, 2024. Plaintiff granted this extension. On January 18, 2024, Sun Life asked for a second extension for its responses and objections until January 23, 2024. Plaintiff granted this extension, and Sun Life served its responses and objections on that day.
2. Among other objections, Sun Life objected to the scope, relevance, and burden of Plaintiff's requests for class discovery. The Parties met and conferred on January 31, 2024 and agreed that if the Court enters this stipulation and adopts the Proposed Amended Scheduling Order, there is no need for motion practice on whether class discovery is appropriate, if at all, until after the summary judgment ruling.
3. Upon the stipulation of the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, the following shall govern discovery, summary judgment, and class certification:
a. Discovery shall be bifurcated into a two-phase process. The first phase (“Phase I”) shall consist of discovery relevant to the merits of the issue of contract interpretation for Plaintiff's individual breach of contract claim. Thus, Phase I discovery shall be limited to issues of contract interpretation for which early summary judgment will be filed.
b. Phase I will be followed by motion practice for summary judgment solely on the issue of contract interpretation. Summary judgment as to all other issues shall be reserved and may be filed during or after Phase II as described below.
c. If final judgment in the district court is not entered as a result of Sun Life's motion for summary judgment during Phase I, there will be a period of class discovery including any remaining merits discovery (“Phase II”). The Parties may serve additional requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions during Phase II. After a ruling on summary judgment in Phase I, the parties will promptly meet and confer to propose a scheduling order for Phase II, including a new date for substantial completion of Phase II documents. Plaintiff may move for class certification at any point during Phase II and until the deadline set by the Court.
d. The Parties agree that the Parties may take second, non-duplicative individual and 30(b)(6) depositions in Phase II.
e. Sun Life stipulates and agrees and hereby expressly waives whatever protections to which it would otherwise be entitled under the “one-way intervention” rule with respect to any summary judgment motion during Phase I as to contract interpretation. See, e.g., Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 547 (1974); Charlessaint v. Persion Acceptance Corp., 110 F.Supp.3d 303, 310 (D. Mass. 2015).
f. The Parties expressly reserve all rights, arguments, claims, and defenses not addressed herein.
g. This Scheduling Order supersedes and vacates the December 21, 2023
Scheduling Order (Dkt. 58).
APPROVED.