Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01807/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01807-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROYLENE RAY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLUEHIPPO FUNDING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-1807 JSW (EMC)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT LETTER

OF FEBRUARY 21, 2008

(Docket No. 112)

Having reviewed the parties’ joint letter of February 21, 2008, the Court hereby rules as

follows.

Although Judge White has not formally lifted the stay he imposed on discovery, there is no

reason for that stay to still be in effect. The purpose of the stay was to enable Judge White to rule on

the motion to transfer; the motion to transfer has now been adjudicated. 

The only question remaining for the Court is whether there should be a temporary “stay” of

discovery so that the parties can meet and confer regarding a discovery plan and so that Judge White

can issue his pretrial order. 

The Court rejects BlueHippo’s argument that discovery should, in effect, be stayed until

Judge White issues his pretrial order. BlueHippo contends that Judge White may set limits on

Plaintiffs’ discovery in that order. However, at the case management conference of March 7, 2008,

Judge White gave the parties substantial guidance as to how discovery should proceed -- i.e., that the

parties are to focus on class certification discovery and not plenary discovery on the merits, but that

given the overlap between such discovery and discovery on the merits of the case, subject matter

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 121 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

scope cannot be strictly contained. It is this Court’s understanding that the parties are to meet and

confer and resolve issues as to e.g., the number and identity of persons to be deposed.

Consistent with Judge White’s directive, the parties shall include in the meet and confer

ordered by Judge White the issue as to the scope of written discovery, including outstanding

requests for production of documents. Plaintiffs shall not be barred from exploring merits-based

discovery where it also informs class certification issues. On the other hand, the focus at this

junction is on class certification. The parties shall bear in mind that this Court’s assessment of the

scope of class certification discovery though not strictly contained will ultimately be guided by

benefit/burden analysis of Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

The parties are also forewarned that the meet and confer shall, if necessary, be in person and

that this Court will sanction any party that does not fully participate in said process prior to bringing

any discovery dispute to this Court.

The briefing schedule and hearing date on the discovery dispute raised in the parties’ joint

letter is hereby VACATED.

This order disposes of Docket No. 112.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 121 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 2