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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ] 

GEORGE J. TICHY, II, Bar No. 041146 

MICHAEL F. MCCABE, Bar No. 111151 

MICHELLE R. BARRETT, Bar No. 197280 

SOFIJA ANDERSON, Bar No. 221602 

LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

650 California Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 

Telephone: 415.433.1940 

Facsimile: 415.399.8490 

Email: gtichy@littler.com; mmccabe@littler.com; 

mbarrett@littler.com; svanderson@littler.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION and Beneficial 

Company LLC 

PETER A. MUHIC, pro hac vice 

ROBERT W. BIELA, pro hac vice 

BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, 

LLP 

280 King Of Prussia Road 

Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 

Telephone: (610) 667-7706 

Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 

Email: pmuhic@btkmc.com, rbiela@btkmc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO 

PAUL VELASQUEZ, FAVIOLA 

ALVAREZ, MARCELO ALTAMIRANO, 

JACKEY WILSON II, CARLOS 

MARTINEZ and DIONICIO MARTINEZ 

on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION; 

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE 

CORPORATION; BENEFICIAL 

COMPANY LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: C 08-04592-SC [MEJ] 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

Judge: Senior Judge Samuel Conti 

Courtroom: 1, 17th Floor 

Complaint Filed: October 2, 2008 

Trial Date: No date set 

/// 

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 114 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

1. Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ] 

THIS STIPULATION AND PROPOSED REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

is made by and entered into between Defendants HSBC Finance Corporation and Beneficial 

Company LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs Marcelo Altamirano and Jackey Wilson II 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to conditionally certify a nationwide 

collective action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former Account Executives 

who were employed by Defendants. As such, Plaintiffs now seek only to bring this action as a 

California state class action on behalf of themselves and all other current and former Account 

Executives who were employed by Defendants in the State of California. 

WHEREAS, on January 29, 2010, counsel for Defendants, Seyfarth Shaw, was withdrawn 

and was superseded as defense counsel by the law firm of Littler Mendelson (Docket No. 106); 

WHEREAS, at the time of substitution of counsel for Defendants, the parties were mired in 

significant, unresolved discovery disputes; 

WHEREAS, the law firm of Littler Mendelson has spent a significant amount of time 

meeting and conferring with both the law firms of Seyfarth Shaw and Plaintiffs’ counsel to 

investigate, understand and work to resolve the discovery disputes; 

WHEREAS, Littler Mendelson and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check continue to 

work closely together to resolve these discovery issues in order to advance the litigation; 

WHEREAS, since Littler Mendelson has taken over defense of this case, it has taken a 

significant amount of time (approximately four months) just to identify and obtain the universe of 

documents due to the fact that the entities that employed the putative class members (Account 

Executives) have ceased operations and moved these documents to various storage locations both in 

the State of California and other areas of the country; 

WHEREAS, it has taken a significant amount of time and much longer than expected 

(approximately three months) to accomplish the threshold discovery procedure of obtaining and 

electronically scanning the universe of documents to put into a form necessary for review in 

anticipation of production; 

WHEREAS, Defendants discovered upon completion of the scanning process that there were 

approximately 625,000 documents—with the majority of documents consisting of anywhere from 

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 114 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

2. Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ] 

approximately 3 to 25 pages in length—that are potentially relevant to this litigation, which 

Defendants estimate would take between one (1) and one and one-half (1 1⁄2) years to completely 

review and produce; 

WHEREAS, in an effort to comply with the Stipulation and Revised Pretrial Scheduling 

Order filed by the parties on February 16, 2010, the parties have met and conferred repeatedly in an 

effort to narrow the scope of discovery to certain categories of documents; 

WHEREAS, review and production of these categories of documents is hampered by the fact 

that the documents contain confidential financial and personal customer information, which counsel 

must closely review and redact to ensure that the individuals’ rights to financial and personal privacy 

are not invaded and that Defendants comply with regulatory requirements to keep such data 

confidential and safe; 

WHEREAS, Defendants have reviewed and produced approximately 24,000 pages of 

documents as of the date of this Stipulation and must review no fewer than approximately 100,000 to 

200,000 additional pages for production; 

WHEREAS, significant class-based discovery remains to be completed, including, inter alia,

the anticipated supplementation of Defendants’ discovery responses as well as additional depositions 

of certain of Defendants’ witnesses, which cannot be taken until such time as additional key 

documents are reviewed and produced by Defendants and subsequently reviewed by Plaintiffs; 

WHEREAS, as a result of the various issues articulated above the dates set forth in the 

current case management schedule cannot reasonably be met by the parties despite their diligent 

efforts; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23 is currently due to be filed on or before June 25, 2010; 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ Opposition to Class Certification is currently due to be filed by 

July 26, 2010; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Class Certification is currently due to be 

filed by August 25, 2010; 

WHEREAS, the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is currently scheduled 

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 114 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

3. Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ] 

for September 17, 2010 or another date to be set by the Court; 

 WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and believe that an approximate 120-day extension of 

the above dates as set forth in the current scheduling Order entered on February 17, 2010 is 

reasonable and necessary to provide the parties with the time necessary to conduct adequate class 

discovery prior to briefing class certification; 

WHEREFORE, IT IS NOW HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that: 

 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 shall be filed by 

October 18, 2010; 

 2. Defendants’ Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by November 18, 2010; 

 3. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Class Certification shall be filed by December 

18, 2010; 

 4. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification shall be conducted on 

January 18, 2010 or such other date as ordered by the Court; and 

 5. Within fifteen (15) days of a ruling by the Court regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly submit to the Court a status report

regarding their plans for participation in a Court-mandated ADR program and address any other 

outstanding issues including how much, if any, additional discovery is required; and 

 6. This Stipulation and Order is subject to revocation and modification by order of the 

Court, upon written stipulation of the parties, or upon motion and reasonable notice. 

SO STIPULATED: 

DATED: June 18, 2010 

Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 

BY  	
 


ROBERT W. BIELA

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Marcelo Altamirano and Jackey Wilson II 

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 114 Filed 06/21/10 Page 4 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

4. Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ] 

DATED: June 18, 2010 Littler Mendelson, P.C. 

BY  
 


MICHELLE R. BARRETT

Attorneys for Defendants 

HSBC Finance Corporation, Beneficial 

Company, LLC 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: __________________________ 

THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 114 Filed 06/21/10 Page 5 of 6
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

Case No. 3:08-CV-04592-SC [MEJ] 

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE

Pursuant to the Court’s General Order 45, Section 10(B), I hereby attest that concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under 

penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing declaration is 

true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. 

Executed this 18th day of June, 2010, in San Francisco, California. 

BY  
 


MICHELLE R. BARRETT

Attorneys for Defendants 

HSBC Finance Corporation, Beneficial 

Company, LLC 

Firmwide:95989627.1 023404.1063 

Case 3:08-cv-04592-SC Document 114 Filed 06/21/10 Page 6 of 6