Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00597/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00597-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Blair Lindquist,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, et

al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. CV 06-597-TUC-FRZ

 SCHEDULING ORDER

 CLASS CERTIFICATION PHASE

A Scheduling Conference was held in this case on March 27, 2008. The parties

proposed setting deadlines related to class certification leading up to a class certification

hearing, and then revisiting deadlines if a class is certified. The Court agrees with this

approach, and adopts the stipulated deadlines submitted by the parties regarding the class

certification phase of the case. As discussed at the Rule 16 conference, while the parties

agreed that the focus of discovery will be related to class certification issues, the Court notes

that there is no bright line between certification and merits discovery; thus, to the extent

Plaintiff seeks discovery relevant to certification issues that may overlap with issues related

to the merits, Plaintiff would most likely be entitled to such discovery during the certification

phase of this case. See 5 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §23.83[3](3rd

Ed. 2007)(“Distinctions between certification and merits discovery should not be artificial or

lead to unnecessary duplication of discovery . . . Frequently, discovery in aid of the

Case 4:06-cv-00597-FRZ Document 58 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

certification decision will include information required to identify the nature of the issues that

will be presented at trial. In that situation, the court may allow controlled discovery into the

merits, limited to those aspects of the case that are relevant to making the certification

decision on an informed basis.”); Manual for Complex Litigation §21.14 (4th Ed. 2004)

(Generally, discovery into certification issues pertains to the requirements of Rule 23 and

tests whether the claims and defenses are susceptible to class-wide proof; discovery into the

merits pertains to the strength or weaknesses of the [class] claims or defenses and tests

whether they are likely to succeed. There is not always a bright line between the two. Courts

have recognized that information about the nature of the claims on the merits and the proof

that they require is important to deciding certification. Arbitrary insistence on the

merits/class discovery distinction sometimes thwarts the informed judicial assessment that

current class certification practice emphasizes.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING

DEADLINES SHALL GOVERN THE CLASS CERTIFICATION PHASE OF THIS

CASE:

(1) Initial Disclosures: 5/28/08.

(2) Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosure/Report: 8/14/08.

(3) Deposition of Plaintiff’s Expert: 10/3/08.

(4) Defendants’ Expert Witness Disclosure/Report: 11/17/08.

(5)Deposition of Defendants’Expert: 12/17/08.

(6) Discovery Deadline (Class Certification Phase): 3/27/09.

(7) Motion for Class Certification: 4/10/09.

(8) Response to Motion for Class Certification: 5/26/09.

(9) Reply to Motion for Class Certification: 6/16/09.

(10) Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: 7/28/09 at 9:30 a.m. (to be continued on

7/29/09 to 7/31/09 if necessary).

Case 4:06-cv-00597-FRZ Document 58 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

(a) The parties shall file only a Notice of Initial Disclosure with the Clerk of the Court, rather

than copies of the actual disclosures.

(b) The parties are directed to LRCiv 7.2(j), Rules of Practice of the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona, which prohibits filing discovery motions unless the parties

have first met to resolve any discovery difficulties. If a discovery dispute arises which

cannot be resolved by the parties, the parties shall notify the Court by telephone at (520) 205-

4530. The Court will promptly resolve the problem by having the parties submit position

statements and scheduling a telephonic conference or by having the parties file formal

motion(s) with the required certification.

(c) The parties shall submit to the Court a brief Joint Settlement Status Report on or before

6/27/08, and every 120 days thereafter.

(d) The parties have leave of the Court, pursuant to LRCiv 7.2, to file a motion, opposition

and reply. No other (supplemental) pleading will be considered by the Court, unless a

motion for leave to file said pleading is granted by the Court. All pleadings submitted for

the court's review must comply with the filing, time, and form requirements of the Local

Rules. Additionally, any pleading which is submitted with more than one exhibit must be

accompanied by a Table of Contents. The exhibits must be indexed with tabs which

correspond to the Table of Contents. The Court will not consider pleadings which do not

conform to these requirements.

(e) The parties cannot, without Court approval, extend the deadlines imposed by the Court.

All motions/requests for extension of time shall comply with LRCiv 7.3. All

motions/requests for extension of discovery deadlines must also include a summary of the

discovery conducted to date, the anticipated discovery to be done if the request is granted,

and the reasons why discovery has not been completed within the deadline.

Lastly, as discussed for the first time during the Rule 16 Conference, it appears that

Plaintiff resides in Maricopa County, that the damaged property that is the subject of this

case is located in Maricopa County, and the relevant insurers’ agents that initially addressed

Case 4:06-cv-00597-FRZ Document 58 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Plaintiff’s property damage claim are also located in Maricopa county. The United States

District Court for the District of Arizona covers the entire State of Arizona. 28 U.S.C. § 82.

However, the District of Arizona is divided into three divisions: the Tucson Division, the

Prescott Division, and the Phoenix Division. See LRCiv 77.1(a). The Phoenix Division

includes the following Arizona counties: “Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma, La Paz, and Gila.” Id.

“Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all civil and criminal cases founded on causes of

action (1) arising in the Phoenix Division shall be tried in Phoenix . . . .” LRCiv 77.1(c).

Thus, it appears that this case should be in the Phoenix division. This issue was discussed

during the Rule 16 Conference and the parties stated that they needed additional time to

explore it; as such, as stipulated by the parties, they shall submit a report regarding this issue

to the Court no later than April 4, 2008.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00597-FRZ Document 58 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 4