Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02125/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02125-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Hacker
Plaintiff
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Defendant
Taylor Smart
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TAYLOR SMART AND MICHAEL 

HACKER, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Those Similarly 

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 

ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated 

association,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-02125 WBS

KJN

 

JOSEPH COLON, SHANNON RAY, 

KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, 

KATHERINE SEBBAME, and PATRICK 

MEHLER, individually and on 

behalf of all those similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 

ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated 

association,

Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-00425 WBS 

KJN

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 7
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

----oo0oo----

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Status Report, the 

court hereby vacates the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference 

scheduled for August 28, 2023, and makes the following findings 

and orders without needing to consult with the parties any 

further.

I. SERVICE OF PROCESS

All defendants have been served, and no further service 

is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).

II. JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

The court has approved the parties’ joint stipulation, 

requesting that the court extend the deadline for defendant to 

answer plaintiffs’ Complaints. (See Smart Docket No. 36.) 

Pursuant to the stipulation, defendant shall file its Answers to 

plaintiffs’ Complaints by August 31, 2023. No further joinder of 

parties or amendments to pleadings will be permitted except with 

leave of court, good cause having been shown under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). 

III. JURISDICTION/VENUE

The court has federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1337, because plaintiffs bring this putative class 

action pursuant to §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§

15(a) and 26, and for violations of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiffs also allege that the court has original 

jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

1332, because (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; 

(2) there are members of the proposed classes who are citizens of 

a different state than defendant; and (3) there are 100 or more 

members in the proposed class. 

Venue is undisputed and hereby found to be proper.

IV. DISCOVERY

The parties in the Smart and Colon cases agree to 

coordinate discovery and other proceedings, when appropriate, to 

avoid duplication. 

The parties agreed to serve the initial disclosures

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by August 

21, 2023. The parties have held their Rule 26(f) conference. 

The parties in the Smart case have engaged in minimal venuerelated discovery. (Id. at 8.) The Smart plaintiffs issued 

their first set of document requests to defendant on August 16, 

2023. The parties in the Colon case have engaged in no 

discovery. (Id. at 9.)

The parties shall disclose experts and produce reports 

in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no 

later than January 7, 2025. With regard to expert testimony 

intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed 

and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before February 7, 2025.

Defendant asks that the court bifurcate discovery so 

that discovery related to class certification occurs first, and 

discovery related to the merits of the claims occurs after the 

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 3 of 7
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

court has issued a decision on class certification. (JSR at 12.) 

Plaintiff believes that bifurcating discovery is inefficient and 

impractical because there will be considerable overlap between 

class certification discovery and merits discovery. (Id.) 

Further, the JSR includes very specific discovery 

requests, including anticipated subjects of discovery, production 

of documents, a potential protective order, authenticity of 

documents, electronic discovery, interrogatories, and 

depositions. (See id. at 9-17.) The parties also request 

different deadlines for fact and expert discovery. (Id. at 19-

21.) 

In the Eastern District of California, discovery is 

managed by the assigned Magistrate Judge. Thus, this Order will 

not address whether to bifurcate discovery or any of the parties’ 

specific discovery requests. The parties may make any discovery 

requests or file any discovery related motions with Judge Newman.

All discovery, including depositions for preservation 

of testimony, is left open, save and except that it shall be so 

conducted as to be completed by March 7, 2025. The word 

“completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so 

that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to 

discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if 

necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has 

been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on 

the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local 

rules of this court and so that such motions may be heard (and 

any resulting orders obeyed) not later than March 7, 2025.

V. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification shall be 

filed on or before August 2, 2024. Defendant’s opposition to the 

motion and plaintiffs’ reply to the opposition shall be filed in 

accordance with Local Rule 230.1

All other motions, except motions for continuances, 

temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, 

shall be filed on or before April 25, 2025. All motions shall be 

noticed for the next available hearing date. Counsel are 

cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements 

for noticing and opposing such motions on the court’s regularly 

scheduled law and motion calendar.

VI. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Final Pretrial Conference is set for July 14, 2025, 

at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5. The conference shall be 

attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the 

trial for each of the parties and by any unrepresented parties.

Counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for 

trial at the time of the Pretrial Conference, with no matters 

remaining to be accomplished except production of witnesses for 

oral testimony. Counsel shall file separate pretrial statements, 

and are referred to Local Rules 281 and 282 relating to the

contents of and time for filing those statements. In addition to 

1 The parties request specific dates for defendant’s 

Opposition and plaintiffs’ Reply. Further, the parties request a 

specific date for the hearing on the motion for class 

certification. The parties may stipulate to such a briefing 

schedule at the time plaintiffs file their motion for class 

certification. The date selected by the parties is not one of 

the court’s regularly scheduled law and motion days. Counsel is 

cautioned to review the court’s calendar when noticing the motion 

for class certification. 

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 5 of 7
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

6

those subjects listed in Local Rule 281(b), the parties are to 

provide the court with: (1) a plain, concise statement which 

identifies every non-discovery motion which has been made to the 

court, and its resolution; (2) a list of the remaining claims as 

against each defendant; and (3) the estimated number of trial 

days.

In providing the plain, concise statements of 

undisputed facts and disputed factual issues contemplated by 

Local Rule 281(b)(3)-(4), the parties shall emphasize the claims 

that remain at issue, and any remaining affirmatively pled 

defenses thereto. If the case is to be tried to a jury, the 

parties shall also prepare a succinct statement of the case, 

which is appropriate for the court to read to the jury.

VII. TRIAL SETTING

The jury trial is set for September 16, 2025 at 9:00 

a.m. The parties estimate that the trial will last up to 3 

weeks. 

VIII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties represent that they are amenable to private 

mediation by an agreed-upon mediator and will continue to have 

discussions about the appropriate time for mediation. (JSR at 

18.) If a resolution is not reached through private mediation by 

the time of the Pretrial Conference, a Settlement Conference with 

a magistrate judge will be set at that time. Counsel are 

instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority 

present at the Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to 

settle the matter on any terms. At least seven calendar days 

before the Settlement Conference counsel for each party shall 

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 6 of 7
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

7

submit a confidential Settlement Conference Statement for review 

by the settlement judge. The Settlement Conference Statements 

shall not be filed and will not otherwise be disclosed to the 

trial judge.

IX. MODIFICATIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER

Any requests to modify the dates or terms of this 

Scheduling Order, except requests to change the date of the 

trial, may be heard and decided by the assigned Magistrate Judge. 

All requests to change the trial date shall be heard and decided 

only by the undersigned judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2023

Case 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK Document 38 Filed 08/24/23 Page 7 of 7