Opinion
Steve W. Berman, (pro hac vice), Catherine Y.N. Gannon, (pro hac vice), HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Berkeley, CA,
Jeff D. Friedman, Shana E. Scarlett, Seattle, WA., Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Adam J. Levitt, (pro hac vice), Kyle McGee, (pro hac vice), GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Chicago, IL.
Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko, BARON & BUDD, P.C., Encino, CA,
Joseph G. Sauder, (pro hac vice), Matthew D. Schelkopf, (pro hac vice), CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP, Haverford, PA, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel
Randall W. Edwards, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, San Francisco, CA,
Janet. L. Conigliaro, (pro hac vice), DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Pursuant to the Court's Minute Entry (Dkt. No. 99) and the Standing Order for all Judges of the Northern District of California, counsel for the parties respectfully submit this Updated Joint Case Management Statement. This is the fifth Case Management Statement; four previous statements were filed with the Court on October 3, 2013 (Dkt. No. 33); January 16, 2014 (Dkt. No. 58); April 17, 2014 (Dkt. No. 82); and June 5, 2014 (Dkt. No. 98). This Updated Joint Case Management Statement is intended to inform the Court on the status of the pleadings and discovery, and to request a postponement of the case management conference by sixty (60) days until October 14, 2014.
II. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
A. Motions
On January 13, 2014 Ford filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 56). Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in Opposition on February 21, 2014 (Dkt. No. 69) and Ford filed its Reply on March 14, 2014 (Dkt. No. 72). On May 30, 2014 this Court rendered a decision granting in part and denying in part Ford's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 97). Plaintiffs will not amend the First Amended Complaint (FAC) and will proceed based on the surviving claims. On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Megan Raney-Aarons filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal (Dkt. No. 100). Defendant Ford filed an Answer to the FAC on July 18, 2014 (Dkt. No. 106).
III. STATUS OF DISCOVERY
As previously reported ( see Dkt. No. 98), the parties participated in a Rule 26(f) conference and exchanged their initial disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(a).
A. Production Agreements
The parties have agreed upon the format of production, including Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") protocols. The parties have also negotiated a general protective order, which this Court ordered on May 16, 2014 (Dkt. No. 96). The parties are in the final phases of negotiating a second protective order that would pertain to highly confidential information, such as source code data.
B. Productions
Ford has so far produced more than 437, 500 pages of emails and documents from 13 custodians and more than 246, 000 pages of documents from Ford's warranty reimbursement and technical contact databases. Ford will continue its rolling production. To date, Ford has made the following productions:
• Documents pertaining to the named Plaintiffs' vehicles and warranty history (04/03/2014);
• Showroom brochures, owners' manuals, and warranty guides (04/15/2014);
• Additional showroom brochures, owners' manuals, and warranty guides, as well as print/video advertising (5/22/2014);
• Special Service Messages and Technical Service Bulletins (5/27/2014);
• Email and other documents maintained by Document Custodian J. Bragg (5/30/2014);
• Email and other documents maintained by Document Custodian B. Krein (6/5/2014);
• Email and other documents maintained by Document Custodian S. Parsons (6/13/2014);
• Email and other documents maintained by Document Custodian R. Englert (7/3/2014);
• Ford warranty reimbursement records/data (AWS reports) and technical contacts (CQIS reports) (6/19/2014 and 7/16/2014);
• Email and other documents maintained by Document Custodians N. Gabrielli and M. Schanerberger (7/22/2014); and
• Email and other documents maintained by Document Custodians H. Ahmed; K. Christianson; H. Elzein; F. Frischmuth; M. Fromman; K. Goebel; J. Green (8/5/2014).
Since June 5, 2014 Plaintiffs have made two productions in response to Ford's discovery requests. The first production was made on June 27, 2014 and the second production was made on July 29, 2014. A third production is scheduled for August 2014 and Plaintiffs will continue to make supplemental productions as soon as practicable. Non-Party, Microsoft Corporation, also made a production on June 24, 2014.
On July 28, 2014 Plaintiff Avedisian served his Supplemental Responses and Objections to Ford's First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs also informed Ford on July 28, 2014 that Plaintiffs Zuchowksi, Battle and Ervin intend to serve interrogatory responses as soon as practicable. For various personal reasons, Plaintiffs have not been able to locate information responsive to all of Ford's discovery requests. Plaintiffs have stated that they intend to produce these interrogatory responses by August 31, 2014.
C. Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production
On February 26, 2014, Plaintiffs served Ford with a Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. The documents requested relate to press reports suggesting that Ford will base the next generation of MFT systems on Blackberry's QNX software, and include any communications with Blackberry regarding the Microsoft-based MFT system, as well as, any documents that reflect key differences in properties between Blackberry's QNX and Microsoft's MFT systems. On April 1, 2014 Ford served its Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. On May 27, 2014 Ford communicated that it intends to stand on its objections of relevancy and burden, but will make an effort to keep looking for responsive documents. Plaintiffs continue to believe that the Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents seeks relevant documents that the collection and production of which would impose no unusual burden upon Ford. Ford does not believe that the documents sought are relevant because they seek information concerning Ford's on-going commercial and business relationships with its suppliers pertaining to future model year vehicles and technology that is not installed in any current Ford or Lincoln production vehicle, nor is it installed in any putative Subject Vehicle. The parties have met and conferred in person and multiple times by telephone and email. Unfortunately, however, the parties have been unable to resolve this issue at this time. While the parties are hopeful that an agreement will be reached soon, they also anticipate that motion practice may be required to resolve this dispute.
D. Vehicle Inspection Protocol
The parties are in the final phases of negotiating a Vehicle Inspection Protocol which shall apply to any and all Class Vehicles owned or leased by any Named Plaintiff in this action at the time the Protocol is executed.
The parties will continue to work cooperatively to ensure the efficient and timely exchange of documents and do not believe there are any disputes that require the Court's assistance at this time.
IV. POSTPONEMENT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
As noted above, the parties are nearing an agreement regarding the production of highly confidential information, such as source code data. Experts will then be provided with an opportunity to review this type of information and their findings will provide considerable guidance to all parties regarding the scheduling of a full motion and trial schedule. As such, all parties request postponing the Case Management Conference by sixty (60) days, to October 14, 2014 on the grounds of prematurity. All parties anticipate that they will be able to provide the Court with a full discovery and trial schedule by October 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED that the Further CMC is reset from 8/14/14 to 10/16/14 at 10:30 a.m. An updated joint CMC Statement due 10/9/14.