Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-md-02731/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-md-02731-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: Sprouts Farmers Market 

Incorporated Employee Data Security 

Breach Litigation, 

No. MDL 16-02731-PHX DLR

ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

 Cases from Arizona and California have been assigned to the undersigned judge 

by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the Panel) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. 

(Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs are former and current employees of Defendant Sprouts Famers 

Market, Inc. who had their personal identifying information accessed, stolen, and used 

without their authorization. (See generally Case No. 16-cv-2047, Doc. 1, ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs 

allege Defendant failed to notify them of various data breaches, thereby placing Plaintiffs 

at an increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and financial injury. (Id., ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs seek 

class-wide relief in the form of damages and the provision of twenty-five years of credit 

monitoring, bank monitoring, credit restoration, and identity theft services. Given the 

common questions of fact involved in each of these cases, the Panel decided to centralize 

the litigation in this District. See In re Sprouts Farmers Market Inc. Emp. Data Sec. 

Breach Litig., No. MD-16-2731-PHX-DLR. 

 As of this date, four actions have been filed in MDL 2731. An initial review of 

the cases reveals that each case is in its initial phases. Additional cases may be filed and 

Case 2:16-md-02731-DLR Document 7 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

consolidated with MDL 2731. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Initial Case Management Conference. An initial case management 

conference is set for November 22, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 506, 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

2. Attendance. To minimize costs and facilitate a manageable conference, 

parties are not required to attend the conference, and parties with similar 

interests should agree to the extent practicable on a single attorney to act on 

their joint behalf at the conference. A party will not, by designating an 

attorney to represent its interests at the conference, be precluded from other 

representation during the litigation, and attendance at the conference will 

not waive objections to jurisdiction, venue, or service. Counsel who wish 

to participate by phone shall notify the Court’s judicial assistant, Mary 

Farmer (602-322-7530). Any counsel who wishes to take a leadership 

position in this MDL should be present in the courtroom. 

3. Other Participants. Persons who are not parties to this litigation, but may 

later be joined as parties, are invited to participate. 

4. Service List. This order is being mailed to counsel who have made 

appearances in the cases currently consolidated in MDL 2731. Counsel on 

this list should forward a copy of this order to other attorneys who should 

be notified of the conference. 

5. Agenda and Discussion of Issues. The Court will issue an order setting an 

agenda for the conference by November 12, 2016. Defense counsel shall 

confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel and submit a proposed agenda, along with a 

discussion of all issues that should be addressed at the outset of this case, 

by November 2, 2016. The submission should address the following, in 

addition to other matters identified by the parties: 

Case 2:16-md-02731-DLR Document 7 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

a. Are there categories of cases that raise different common issues, or 

do all of the cases raise all of the common issues? 

b. Should a document depository of some sort be created? 

c. Have the parties established an ESI protocol that is being used in 

some or all of the cases? 

d. Have the parties agreed upon protective orders and Rule 502 orders 

that are being used in some or all of the cases? 

e. Will some of the cases raise jurisdictional or remand issues that need 

to be addressed early? If so, what are those issues and what cases 

are affected? 

f. Are there similar state court cases pending? If so, where and in what 

number? Has there been any coordination with state court cases thus 

far? 

g. Should a master complaint be filed for organizational purposes (not 

to supersede pending complaints in individual cases)? 

h. What discovery plan should be adopted in this case? 

i. Should the case include alternatives to traditional written discovery, 

such as fact sheets to be completed under oath by parties? 

j. Are there particular issues which, if resolved early, will significantly 

advance the litigation? 

k. Should the Court set a firm date by which cases will be remanded to 

transferor districts? 

l. The parties should review the undersigned’s standard Case 

Management Order on the District website to get a sense for how the 

undersigned usually manages cases. 

6. Admission of Counsel. Attorney admission is governed by Local Rule 83.1. 

Association of local co-counsel is not required at this stage of the litigation, 

although active local counsel likely will be important for attorneys 

Case 2:16-md-02731-DLR Document 7 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

appointed to leadership positions in this case. 

7. Pending and New Discovery. Pending the conference, all outstanding 

disclosure and discovery is stayed. This Order does not (1) preclude 

voluntary informal discovery regarding the identification and location of 

relevant documents and witnesses; (2) preclude parties from stipulating to 

conducting depositions that already have been scheduled; (3) prevent a 

party from voluntarily making disclosures or responding to an outstanding 

discovery request; or (4) authorize a party to suspend its efforts in gathering 

information needed to respond to an outstanding discovery request. 

8. Later-Filed Cases. This order applies to any cases later filed in, transferred 

to, or removed to this Court. Cases may not be filed directly as part of 

MDL 2731. Rather, cases must be filed in the appropriate district and 

transferred in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rules 6.2 and 7.1 of 

the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation. 

9. Applications for Lead and Liaison Counsel. The Court intends to appoint 

lead or liaison counsel for plaintiffs and defendants. The Court expects 

defendants to designate lead counsel. Applications for plaintiffs’ lead or 

liaison counsel must be filed electronically by November 2, 2016. The 

Court will consider only attorneys who have filed a civil action or an 

appearance in this litigation. The main criteria will be (1) willingness and 

ability to commit to a time-consuming process; (2) ability to work 

cooperatively with others; (3) professional experience in this type of 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:16-md-02731-DLR Document 7 Filed 10/21/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

 litigation; and (4) access to sufficient resources to advance the litigation in 

a timely manner. By November 2, 2016, plaintiffs’ counsel may submit 

suggestions on the appropriate organization or the plaintiffs in this case, 

including the designation of lead or liaison counsel and supporting 

committees, and suggestions regarding the funding of the plaintiffs’ side. 

Dated this 21st day of October, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-md-02731-DLR Document 7 Filed 10/21/16 Page 5 of 5