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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES RIDGWAY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-05221-SI 

ORDER RE: RECENTLY IDENTIFIED 

CLASS MEMBERS AND SCHEDULE 

ADJUSTMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 314

Currently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing issuance of 

supplemental class notice to recently identified class members. Docket No. 213 (“Mot.”). On 

June 14, 2016, defendant Wal-Mart notified plaintiffs that it had identified an additional 42 class 

members who were inadvertently not included in the previous class list. Docket No. 316, Decl. of 

Jesse A. Cripps ¶ 2, Ex. A. Plaintiffs therefore seek an order regarding, among other items, class 

notice, supplemental expert reports, and the costs associated with each. Wal-Mart has filed a 

response, asking that the Court order a 60-day opt-out period and proposing alternative and 

additional deadlines to those put forward in plaintiffs’ motion. Docket No. 315 (“Resp.”). 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution 

without oral argument and VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for July 8, 2016. Having 

considered the papers filed, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows.

Class Notice: Class notice shall issue to the 42 recently identified class members no later 

than July 12, 2016. The notice attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Daniel M. Kopfman, 

Docket No. 314-2, is approved with the following changes: 

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 320 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

 The notice shall give the class members a 45-day opt-out period, resulting in an 

opt-out deadline of no later than August 26, 2016.

 Section I shall include the following language, in place of the language from the 

original class notice that plaintiffs seek to strike:

1

“The case has not yet gone to 

trial, and the Court has not entered a final judgment in the action or determined that 

Wal-Mart owes any money or damages. The trial in this case is currently set to 

begin on October 3, 2016.” (See below regarding new trial date.)

 Section IX shall be modified to reflect the new trial date of October 3, 2016, in 

place of the September 19, 2016, date.

Wal-Mart shall pay the costs of notice, which plaintiffs estimate to be approximately $158. See

Kopfman Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. C.

Expert Supplementation: Wal-Mart has indicated that on July 1, 2016, it produced 

additional discovery related to the 42 class members. Resp. at 8. Therefore, plaintiffs may serve 

supplemental expert reports that reflect this new production no later than July 12, 2016, and 

defendants may serve a supplemental expert report from Dr. Jonathan Walker no later than July 

19, 2016.

2

 Each expert for whom a supplemental report is served shall be made available for 

deposition within fourteen days of the service of the supplemental report. As agreed to in their 

 

1

Plaintiffs seek to strike the following language at Section I of the original class notice: 

The case has not yet gone to trial, and the Court has not made any final decisions 

about the merits of the case and has not determined that Wal-Mart owes any 

money. It may ultimately determine that Wal-Mart has done nothing wrong. 

Conversely, the Court may ultimately determine Wal-Mart has violated 

California’s wage laws and award damages. 

Mot. at 4; Cripps Decl. ¶ 7.

2 Wal-Mart indicates in its response that Dr. Walker is the only defense expert who will 

need to serve a supplemental report in light of the newly produced data. Resp. at 8. Wal-Mart 

further indicates that the expert witnesses for plaintiffs who will be impacted by the new data 

production are Dr. Phillips, Mr. Chasworth, and Mr. Garcia. Id. Plaintiffs do not specify which 

experts they believe will need to file supplemental reports. 

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 320 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

papers, Wal-Mart shall pay the reasonable costs associated with plaintiffs’ supplemental expert 

report(s). See id. at 3.

Motions Deadlines: Wal-Mart has requested that the Court set deadlines for the filing of 

Daubert motions on the supplemental expert reports and for Wal-Mart’s decertification motion. 

The Court declines to set a schedule for the filing of Daubert motions. As to any motion to 

decertify the class, the Court has already set a motions deadline of July 8, 2016, and this remains 

the deadline.3 

Trial Dates: The Court finds that a slightly modified trial schedule is appropriate at this 

time. The pretrial conference is hereby continued to September 20, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 1, 17th Floor. The trial is continued to October 3, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

3

In fact, Wal-Mart previously represented that it would file its decertification motion on 

the motions deadline of July 8, 2016. Docket No. 216, Joint Case Management Statement at 1. 

Why Wal-Mart has now taken the position that that deadline does not apply and a new deadline 

must be set is unclear. 

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 320 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 3