Opinion
CASE NO.: 2:08-cv-00965 LKK/GGH
01-20-2012
SAMUEL BRANDON KRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Defendant.
DANIEL J. THOMASCH (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) LAUREN J. ELLIOT (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP JULIAN W. POON, SBN 219843 ALEXANDER K. MIRCHEFF, SBN 245074 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorneys for Defendant PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP NORMAN C. HILE, SBN 27599 JULIE A. TOTTEN, SBN 166470 DAVID A. PRAHL, SBN 233583 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP MICHELE L. MARYOTT, SBN 191993 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP Jeffrey Compton William Baird Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DANIEL J. THOMASCH
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
LAUREN J. ELLIOT
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JULIAN W. POON, SBN 219843
ALEXANDER K. MIRCHEFF, SBN 245074
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
NORMAN C. HILE, SBN 27599
JULIE A. TOTTEN, SBN 166470
DAVID A. PRAHL, SBN 233583
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
MICHELE L. MARYOTT, SBN 191993
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
Jeffrey Compton
William Baird
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting a Stipulation entered into between Plaintiffs Samuel Brandon Kress, Lac Anh Le, Jason Patterson, Lauren San Mateo, James Stekelberg, Jeffrey LaBerge, Willow Markham, Dana Blindbury, Jesse Kenny, Kelly C. Jones, Albert Liu, Daniel Gonzalez, David Beadles, and Antoine Powell (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("Defendant" or "PwC") (together, "the parties") concerning a modified schedule for, among other things, briefing related to Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Class Certification Motion with respect to a putative class of unlicensed Associates and Senior Associates in PwC's Tax line of service in California ("Rule 23 Tax Motion") (see Docket No. 223).
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's July 21, 2011 Order, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Rule 23 Tax Motion is January 30, 2012, the deadline for PwC to file its opposition brief is March 15, 2012, and the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply brief is April 14, 2012;
WHEREAS, the parties have substantial discovery to complete relating to Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Tax Motion, including, but not limited to, written discovery and deposition discovery;
WHEREAS, the parties are in the process of completing briefing concerning Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion with respect to a putative class of unlicensed Senior Associates in PwC's Audit division of its Assurance line of service in California ("Rule 23 Assurance Motion"), and Plaintiffs' reply brief on that Motion is due to be filed on February 13, 2012 (see Docket No. 252);
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agree that, given the substantial breadth of the putative class at issue in Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Tax Motion, an increase in the page limits applicable to the parties' opening, opposition and reply briefs would benefit the parties and the Court by helping to ensure that Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Tax Motion is fully and fairly briefed;
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agree that this stipulation is not for the purpose of delay and will further the effective and efficient administration of this litigation.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Tax Motion shall be due on or before July 31, 2012, PwC's opposition brief shall be due on or before September 28, 2012, and Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be due on or before November 13, 2012. Within 14 days of the filing of Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Tax Motion, the parties will meet and confer and propose a hearing date for approximately one month after the reply date.
2. The page limits applicable to the parties' briefs on Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Tax Motion shall be extended such that the parties' opening and opposition briefs shall be no more than 45 pages in length, and Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be no more than 20 pages in length.
DANIEL J. THOMASCH
LAUREN J. ELLIOT
MICHELE L. MARYOTT
JULIAN W. POON
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
NORMAN C. HILE
JULIE A. TOTTEN
DAVID A. PRAHL
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
By: ___________________________
DANIEL J. THOMASCH
Attorneys for Defendant
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
PETER MUHIC
JAMES A. MARO
MICHELLE A. COCCAGNA
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
EDWARD WYNNE
Wynne Law Firm
JEFFREY COMPTON
WILLIAM BAIRD
Markun Zusman & Compton LLP
STEPHEN ELSTER
Law Office of Stephen Elster
By: ___________________________
WILLIAM BAIRD
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT