1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TARA FARRELL, HENLEY VELARDE, 

and DOUGLAS WELLS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW MILLENNIUM CONCEPTS, LTD.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 3:22-cv-00728-M

JOINT REPORT REGARDING CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to this Court’s Order Requiring Scheduling Conference and Report for Contents 

of Scheduling Order, entered on March 31, 20221, counsel for Plaintiffs Tara Farrell, Henley 

Velarde, and Douglas Wells (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant New Millennium Concepts, 

LTD. (“Defendant” or “NMCL”) (collectively the “Parties”), met and conferred via telephone

on April 12, 2022, and report to the Court as follows:

1. A Brief Statement of the Claims and Defenses

Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs contend that Defendant manufactures and falsely and 

deceptively advertises and warrants household point-of-use Berkey water purification systems as 

water “purifiers” that entirely remove or “greatly” or “dramatically” reduce contaminants by the 

bare minimum 80% reduction rate displayed on the filters’ packaging, for 3,000 gallons per filter. 

See Complaint, filed 09/16/2021 (ECF 1) at ¶¶ 2-5, 18-25. However, Defendant’s products neither 

purify water, nor do they reduce contaminants by at least 80%, let alone 3,000 gallons worth of 

1 Dkt. No. 42.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID 722
2

water. See id. at ¶¶ 2-5, 18-25. Accordingly, on September 16, 2021,2 Plaintiffs filed this putative 

class action against Defendant to assert six causes of action for: (1) Breach of Express Warranty; 

(2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (3) Unjust Enrichment/Restitution; (4) 

Violation of California Unfair Competition Law codified as Cal. Bus. Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

(“UCL”); (5) Violation of California False Advertising Law codified at Cal. Civ. Code §§ 17500, 

et seq. (“FAL”); and (6) Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act codified at Cal. Civ. Code 

§§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”). See generally Compl. (ECF 1). Plaintiffs seek to represent a 

nationwide class and California subclass of consumers, who purchased Defendant’s products over 

the course of several years, to recover on a class-wide basis all monetary damages, 

restitution/disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs, pre- and postjudgement interest, punitive damages and statutory penalties, and other further and just relief to 

which Plaintiffs and the class care entitled as a result. See Complaint, filed 09/16/2021 (ECF 1) at 

¶¶ 43, 118. 

Defendant’s Position: Defendant NMCL is a Texas company that provides industryleading water filter systems, verified by independent, third-party laboratory testing to dramatically 

reduce contaminants in water and make non-potable water potable. Plaintiffs—now on their 

second iteration of this case—claim to have purchased an NMCL Travel Berkey water filter system 

or Purification Elements (component parts used for the Travel Berkey and other NMCL water filter 

2 Plaintiff Farrell, alone, initiated a similar action on January 14, 2021. When additional Plaintiffs, 

Velarde and Wells, wished to join the action after the expiration of Plaintiff’s deadline to amend 

without need for stipulation or Court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, Plaintiff Farrell voluntarily 

dismissed that case without prejudice and refiled this action on September 16, 2021, with all three, 

current named Plaintiffs.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID 723
3

systems).3

 Plaintiffs assert that tests commissioned by their attorneys of a Crown Berkey—an 

NMCL water filter system Plaintiffs did not purchase and that NMCL prohibits from being sold 

in California, where Plaintiffs reside—allegedly show that NMCL knowingly made false claims 

about the performance of all of its water filter systems and related products sold under the Berkey 

brand name, including the Travel Berkey and Purification Elements they actually purchased. These 

litigation-driven tests provide the sole basis for their claims that NMCL breached express and 

implied warranties in connection with their purchase of a Travel Berkey or Purification Elements; 

violated the UCL, CLRA, and FAL; and was unjustly enriched. Plaintiffs’ tests and allegations do 

nothing to undermine the independent third-party testing supporting the performance of NMCL’s 

products, nor do they demonstrate that NMCL knowingly made false claims. Plaintiffs also cannot 

demonstrate that vague descriptors like “dramatically” and “greatly” are actionable and capable of 

being proved false, nor that Plaintiffs relied on those vagaries when buying the products. NMCL 

denies that it breached any warranties, that it made any untrue statements about its products 

(knowingly or otherwise), and that Plaintiffs suffered any damages.

NMCL further denies that this case may be properly certified as a class action.

2. Proposed Time Limit to File Motions for Leave to Join Other Parties

The Parties propose filing motions for leave to join other parties consistent with the 

proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

3 Plaintiff Farrell filed a class action complaint against NMCL on January 14, 2021 in the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, styled Farrell v. New Millennium 

Concepts, Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-0075 (E.D. Cal.). After NMCL moved to dismiss the complaint, 

Farrell dismissed the case without prejudice. Months later, on September 16, 2021, Farrell and 

two new Plaintiffs filed a nearly-identical lawsuit in the same court, styled Farrell v. New 

Millennium Concepts, Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-01691 (E.D. Cal.); Dkt. 1. Judge Mendez then granted 

NMCL’s motion to transfer and transferred the case to this District, and it is now before this Court. 

Dkts. 39-40.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID 724
4

3. Proposed Time Limit to Amend the Pleadings

The Parties propose filing all amended pleadings consistent with the proposed schedule 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

4. Proposed Time Limits to File Various Types of Motions, Including Dispositive 

Motions

a. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion: NMCL timely moved to dismiss the 

Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) while the case was in California. Dkt. 

13. Judge Mendez denied that motion as moot when he transferred this case to this Court. Dkt. 39.

Thus, no Court has ruled on NMCL’s dismissal arguments that it filed in lieu of answering the 

Complaint. As a result, NMCL shall file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim concurrently 

with this joint report. The Parties have proposed a deadline for this briefing schedule in the 

proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

b. Motion for Class Certification: Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for class 

certification. The Parties propose a deadline to file said motion, related briefing, and related 

deadlines for class-expert discovery in the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

c. Motion for Summary Judgment: The Parties propose that the Court defer setting 

the deadlines related to the filing of any motions for summary judgment until after it rules on class 

certification, as the Court’s ruling will have a significant impact on the scope of summary judgment 

as well as the time needed to complete discovery and briefing. Instead, the Parties propose 

deadlines to meet and confer and submit a further proposed schedule following this Court’s ruling 

on Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification as set forth in the proposed schedule 

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID 725
5

5. Proposed Time Limit for Initial Designation of Experts

a. Class Certification Experts: The Parties propose deadlines related to expert 

opinions relied upon to support or oppose class certification in the proposed schedule attached 

hereto as Exhibit A.

b. Trial Experts: With respect to pre-trial expert discovery, the Parties propose this 

Court defer setting dates until after it rules on class certification as the Court’s ruling will have a 

significant impact on the amount of time needed to complete discovery and prepare for trial. 

Instead, the Parties propose deadlines to meet and confer and submit a further proposed schedule 

following this Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification as set forth in 

the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

6. Proposed Time Limit for Responsive Designation of Experts

a. Class Certification Experts: The Parties propose deadlines for responsive 

designation of experts in connection with class certification as set forth in Exhibit A. 

b. Trial Experts: The Parties also propose deferring setting deadlines in connection 

with experts designated for trial until after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification as set forth in Exhibit A.

7. Proposed Time Limit for Objections to Experts 

a. Class Certification Experts: The Parties propose deadlines for objections to 

experts designated in connection with class certification as set forth in Exhibit A. 

b. Trial Experts: The Parties also propose deferring setting deadlines in connection 

with experts designated for trial until after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification as set forth in Exhibit A.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID 726
6

8. Proposed Discovery Plan

The Parties set forth below a proposed plan and schedule for discovery, a statement of the 

subjects on which discovery may be needed, a time limit to complete factual discovery and expert 

discovery, and a statement of whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to or 

focused upon particular issues.

a. Plan and Schedule for Discovery: The Parties exchanged Rule 26(a)(1) initial fact 

disclosures in December 2021, but have not engaged in written discovery, taken depositions, or 

issued subpoenas while Defendant’s Rule 12 motions and motion to transfer venue were pending 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The parties intend to 

propound written discovery (document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admissions), take 

each other’s depositions and any key depositions of party-employees, and subpoena documents 

and key depositions of third parties. The parties further anticipate taking expert discovery, 

including documents and depositions, regarding both class certification and the merits of Plaintiffs’ 

claims. The Parties propose deadlines for factual discovery and expert discovery for both class 

certification and the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims as set forth in Exhibit A.

b. Scope of Discovery. 

Plaintiffs’ Position: 

1) Subjects of Discovery. Plaintiffs anticipate seeking discovery on all 

matters pertinent to class certification and merits, including: (i) unique product identification or 

control numbers (e.g., internal identifiers, SKUs, UPCs, lot numbers); (ii) the sales figures (number 

of units sold and total sales per month) throughout the class period for each product (including 

unique product identification number), according to each authorized agent and/or third-party 

retailer; (iii) product pricing (wholesale, retail, and manufacturer recommended sales pricing); (iv) 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID 727
7

identification of each person or entity authorized to market or sell the products, including dates 

during which they were so authorized and any documents regarding the nature and terms of the

relationship between Defendant and those authorized persons or entities; (v) identification of each 

consumer, their contact information, and their purchase information (e.g., name, billing/shipping 

address, product/identification number, date of transaction, dollar amount of transaction, and 

refunds/discounts); (vi) exemplar product labels and packaging, dates in use, and identification of 

each person involved in the creation and approval of their content, since the product was first 

introduced into the market place; (vii) advertisements, marketing materials, and other publicly 

disseminated information concerning the products, including dates in use, and identification of 

each person involved in the creation and approval of their content, since the product was first 

introduced into the market place; (viii) market research, consumer surveys, focus groups, targeted 

demographics, and any analysis regarding performance of marketing campaigns, consumer needs 

or desires, consumer perceptions, consumer reasons to buy or discontinue use, and/or experiences 

with the products; (ix) information and materials provided to any distributor, seller, industry 

regulatory organization, or governmental regulatory agency regarding the product design, 

performance, or substantiation for the advertising claims at issue; (x) product design, 

materials/media, and manufacturing specifications (including dates in use and product 

identification numbers) during the class period; (xi) identification of each person or entity who 

designed, manufactured, and/or supplied materials for the black purification elements (including 

product identification numbers and dates/quantities) during the class period; (xii) all testing, 

analyses, or evaluations of the product performance (including contaminants reduced, rate of 

reduction, point of breakthrough); (xiii) complaints regarding the product performance in relation 

to the challenged representations, including customer complaints, watch dog or advocacy group 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID 728
8

complaints, governmental complaints, related investigations, and any filings; (xiv) information 

and documentation procedures (including the identification of relevant custodians, databases, 

software applications, and hard, network, and cloud-based drives); and (xv) counterfeit products.

2) Significant Third-Party Discovery. Plaintiffs anticipate a significant 

amount of third-party discovery may be needed to prepare Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification 

and for trial. Defendant utilized a significantly large number of purported third-party “Authorized 

Dealers,” but contests Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant held them out as authorized agents 

and/or controlled the advertising and warranty representations that form the basis of this action. 

See Complaint (ECF 1) at ¶¶ 13-15, 26-28; Rule 12(b)(6) MTD at 1, 6-8, 13; Opp. at 1-3, 4; Reply 

at 1, 5; Rule 12(b)(2) MTD-PJ at 1-2, 9-13; Opp. at 1, 6-8, 9, 11, 15; Reply at 1, 2-4. Defendant 

also utilized numerous third-party laboratories to purportedly substantiate its representations 

regarding the purification, contaminant reduction, and longevity advertising and warranty 

representations that form the basis of this action. See, e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) MTD at 1-2, 11; Opp. at 

1-2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15; Reply at 1, 4, n.8. Plaintiffs anticipate requiring a significant amount of time 

to complete discovery to the extent that Plaintiffs may subpoena documents and/or depositions 

from the Authorized Dealers and/or laboratories, which will require sufficient time for those 

witnesses to respond to subpoenas, meet and confer and seek Court intervention to resolve any 

disputes, and otherwise manage discovery with witnesses across numerous states throughout the 

nation. However, at present, Plaintiffs are unaware of the identity of all such numerous “thirdparty” Authorized Dealers or laboratories as Defendant has not identified them in its Rule 26(a)(1) 

initial fact disclosures and, as set forth below (see, infra, 8.d.), Defendant wishes to stay discovery 

pending this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s anticipated re-filed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 

Given the foregoing, Plaintiffs believe that there are currently unknown variables that may have a 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID 729
9

significant impact on the time needed to complete discovery to prepare for class certification and/or 

trial.

Defendant’s Position: NMCL anticipates seeking discovery on all matters pertinent to 

class certification and merits, including but not limited to: (i) Plaintiffs’ alleged purchase and use 

of the products at issue, including their review of any marketing materials related to the products; 

(ii) the alleged testing performed by Plaintiffs’ representatives and inspection of the tested 

products; (iii) the purchase and use of NMCL products by members of the putative class, including 

their review of any marketing materials related to the products; (iv) inspection of the products 

purchased by Plaintiffs; (v) the typicality of Plaintiffs’ claims; (vi) the adequacy of Plaintiffs as 

class representatives; (vii) the alleged damages; and (viii) all other allegations in the Complaint.

c. Phased or Limited Discovery.

The Parties have agreed to a phased approach to discovery that prioritizes issues related to 

class certification, as described more fully below. The Parties’ agreement is intended to promote 

efficiency and facilitate a decision on class certification as early as practicable, consistent with 

Rule 23. 

The Parties have agreed to bifurcate class certification-related discovery and merits-only 

discovery on the sole conditions that: (1) Plaintiffs, who agree to permit full discovery of the merits 

of their claims from the outset, are subjected to only one deposition absent any further order of 

this Court based on circumstances warranting further depositions under applicable law for reasons 

other than the bifurcation of discovery; (2) Plaintiffs do not relinquish any rights, if any, to seek 

discovery necessary to oppose any dispositive motion, including any motion for summary 

judgment under Rule 56; and (3) if either party believes there is a need for targeted merits 

discovery on issues that may significantly impact case value, the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ recovery, 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID 730
10

and/or the economic and efficient management of discovery, that party may move this Court for 

limited relief from bifurcation to seek such discovery during the class-certification phase of the 

case after a good-faith attempt to meet and confer with the other Parties.

d. Whether to Stay Discovery Pending this Court’s Ruling on Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs contend that staying discovery pending the Court’s ruling 

on Defendant’s anticipated Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will cause significant and undue delay. 

Plaintiffs appreciates Defendant’s desire to avoid significant and unduly burdensome discovery

pending the motion to dismiss. However, Plaintiffs strongly contend there is limited and critical 

discovery that can be completed pending the Court’s ruling, without unduly burdening Defendant 

with providing all “related” information and documents, and that would promote the efficient 

management of discovery and expeditious resolution of this matter. This includes, but is not 

necessarily limited to, the following: (a) the identification of all class products by Universal 

Product Codes, Stock Keeping Units, and other unique identifiers; (b) identification of total units 

sold, and total revenues generated therefrom, for all sales of the class products during the 

applicable class period; (c) identification of all third-party Authorized Dealers’ during the class 

period and production of their contracts; (d) identification of all third-party laboratories and 

production of their contracts, data, results, and reports; and (e) production of exemplar labeling 

and packaging schematics for all class products marketed and/or sold during the class period.

Defendant’s Position: Discovery in class actions is often enormous, and even more so in 

a consumer class action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers who bought many 

different types of products, from many different dealers, over many different years, in many 

different states. But NMCL’s motion to dismiss (being filed concurrently herewith) could very 

well moot all of this discovery. For this reason, the Fifth Circuit and courts in this District have 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID 731
11

held that discovery stays are especially appropriate early in a case where a motion to dismiss may 

dispose of it, and this tenant undoubtedly rings truer in putative consumer class actions due to their 

inherent complexity and enormous discovery burdens. Before the parties engage in this protracted 

and expensive endeavor, NMCL believes the Parties would benefit from a ruling that determines

whether any discovery is necessary at all. Even if the Court does not completely dismiss Plaintiffs’ 

claims, it could meaningfully narrow them—and thus the discovery at issue.

Plaintiffs appreciate this reality. They have not served discovery since filing this case 

seven months ago and while the prior motion to dismiss was pending in California. Yet it appears 

Plaintiffs have changed their minds and want to proceed with “limited” discovery, but the proposed 

discovery is not so limited and seems to cover almost everything about every product potentially 

at issue in the case. If that is the case, NMCL will very likely move to stay discovery pending a 

ruling on its motion to dismiss.

9. Proposed Changes to the Discovery Limitations

The Parties propose that any changes or limitations on discovery shall only be made by the 

Court and/or by agreement of the Parties. In certain situations, Plaintiffs contend that the Parties 

may need to conduct depositions remotely either to mitigate expenses, respect party or third-party

public health concerns stemming from COVID19, and/or to facilitate the efficient and expedient 

management of discovery. Plaintiffs intend to meet and confer with Defendant to evaluate the need 

for remote video-conferenced depositions and seek stipulations and/or Court intervention as 

needed. No modifications are needed at this time.

10. Proposed Disclosure or Discovery of Electronically Stored Information 

The Parties have discussed the preservation and discovery of electronically-stored 

information (“ESI”) and, should discovery proceed, they will adhere to routine practices for 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID 732
12

collecting, reviewing, and producing ESI, including with the assistance of third-party vendors 

and/or platforms as needed. At this time, the Parties do not need Court-approved protocols to 

govern the search and production of ESI for a variety of reasons, including that there is no 

foreseeable dispute and the time and expense of negotiating formal protocols is often unnecessary 

where sophisticated counsel who routinely handle ESI in federal court are cooperating . Prior to a 

Party searching for or producing ESI (with the exception of preliminary searches to better 

understand the framework of a Party’s ESI), the Parties will use reasonable and good faith efforts

to meet and confer regarding any parameters (such as search terms, production of native files, and 

exportation of data into usable formats and file types) that may be necessary to ensure the orderly 

and efficient exchange of said materials to the extent they are discoverable. If the Parties are unable 

to agree on such parameters, the Parties will use reasonable and good faith efforts to meet and 

confer regarding an agreement on more formal ESI protocols to govern the case.

11. Proposed Handling and Protection of Privileged or Trial-Preparation Material 

The Parties agree that, should discovery proceed in any form, a protective order governing 

the confidentiality of documents and information will be required to protect confidential, 

proprietary, and trade secret information and putative class members’ identifying information, to 

the extent said materials are discoverable. The Parties also anticipate that such an order would 

include a “clawback” provision related to the inadvertent production of privileged or protected 

materials. The Parties will work together in good faith to prepare and file a stipulated proposed 

protective order prior to any party or third-party’s deadline to respond to discovery.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID 733
13

12. Proposed Trial Date, Estimated Days Required for Trial, and Jury Demand

The Parties propose that the Court defer setting a trial date until after it rules on Plaintiffs’ 

anticipated motion for class certification consistent with the proposed schedule attached hereto as 

Exhibit A.

At this time, the Parties estimate requiring 15 court days of trial, subject to the need for 

fewer or additional days depending on the information, documents, identification of percipient 

witnesses, and other matters that may develop during the course of discovery. Plaintiffs have 

demanded a jury trial on all issues so triable.

13. Proposed Date for Further Settlement Negotiations

Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs are amenable to engaging in informal settlement 

negotiations and engaging in private mediation. Plaintiffs propose this Court set a deadline to 

complete private mediation and/or complete a settlement conference prior to class certification, as 

set forth in the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Defendant’s Position: NMCL is amenable to private mediation and the proposed deadline 

in Exhibit A. NMCL will work with the Plaintiffs to schedule mediation and expects that the Parties 

will be able to agree on a private mediator.

14. Disclosures Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)

The Parties exchanged Initial Fact Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 26(a)(1) on 

December 17, 2021. The Parties reserve the right to supplement and/or amend the information 

contained in the initial disclosures as the materiality of issues, facts, witnesses, and documents 

become apparent, and as discovery and investigation continue. 

15. Trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge David L. Horan

All Parties do not consent to trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge David L. Horan.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID 734
14

16. Mediation and Arbitration 

The Parties are amenable to private mediation, but do not consent to arbitration. The Parties 

propose the deadline set forth in the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Parties 

will work together to schedule mediation and expect to be able to agree on a private mediator.

17. Other Proposals to Facilitate Expeditious and Orderly Preparation for Trial

Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs are not presently aware of any other matters that may 

facilitate the expeditious and orderly preparation for trial as discovery has not yet commenced. 

Plaintiffs nonetheless anticipate stipulations to indisputable facts, foundational evidence, and 

similar matters will likely be appropriate in this case, depending on the development of discovery. 

Plaintiffs will confer with Defendant as these matters are identified.

Defendant’s Position: At this time, NMCL does not have any additional proposals 

regarding scheduling and discovery aside from than those set forth above.

18. Conference with the Court

Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs believe that a conference with the Court may be necessary 

to the extent the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A leaves open issues needed for 

Court resolution and/or the Court requires further information from the Parties to set a reasonable 

and just schedule. Plaintiffs will make arrangements to attend the conference if the Court so orders. 

Defendant’s Position: NMCL believes a conference with the Court may be unnecessary 

but is not opposed to one, particularly if the Court (i) has questions regarding the Parties’ positions 

on discovery or the proposed schedule, or (ii) would otherwise find value in a conference.

19. Other Matters Relevant to the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 16(c), and 26(c)

The Parties respectfully request that the Court enter a Scheduling Order consistent with the 

dates set forth in the proposed schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Parties further request 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID 735
15

this Court set a further case management conference following this Court’s ruling on the 

anticipated motion for class certification to enter a Further Scheduling Order governing the 

remainder of discovery and setting a pre-trial conference and trial related dates.

Date: April 21, 2022 EDWARDS LAW

By: /s/ Mike Singley

Mike Singley 

603 W. 17th Street

Austin, TX 78701

Tel: 512-623-7727

Fax: 512-623-7729

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Date: April 21, 2022 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

By: /s/ Ronald W. Breaux

Ronald W. Breaux, Esq.

State Bar No. 02937200

Benjamin G. Goodman, Esq.

State Bar No. 24091433

Benjamin B. Breckler, Esq.

State Bar No. 24121922

2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700

Dallas, TX 75219

Tel: (214) 651-5000

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID 736
16

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

The Parties jointly propose the following dates, except where expressly indicated 

otherwise. Once the Court rules on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the 

Parties will submit an updated proposed scheduling order containing specific dates based largely 

if not entirely on the schedule outlined herein.

Event Proposed Deadline

1. Deadline for Defendant to Refile Rule 

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to 

State a Claim

April 21, 2022

2. Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Opposition 

to Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to State a Claim

May 26, 2022

3. Deadline for Defendant to File Reply Brief 

in Support of Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to 

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

June 23, 2022

4. Hearing on Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a 

Claim

Pursuant to Court Order

(Per L.R. 7.1 g.)

5. Deadline to File Joint Status Report re: 

Class Certification

67 days before the deadline to file motion 

for class certification; and 7 days before 

any Pre-Certification Case Management 

Conference

6. Pre-Certification Case Management 

Conference (if requested by the Court after 

filing of parties’ Joint Status Report)

60 days before the deadline to file motion 

for class certification

7. Deadline to File Motion to Amend the 

Pleadings and Join Parties

45 days before the deadline to file motion 

for class certification

8. Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Motion for 

Class Certification, Serve Class 

Certification Expert Declarations and/or 

Reports in Compliance with Rule 

26(a)(2)(B), and Produce any 

Discoverable Expert Documents that are 

Not Otherwise Required to Be Disclosed 

Under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

Not Stipulated

Plaintiffs’ Position: Based on Defendant’s 

apparent disinclination to conduct 

discovery pending the resolution of its 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs 

are unable to agree upon a specific time 

frame to complete class discovery. 

If Defendant responds to written discovery 

and produces documents pending 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 16 of 19 PageID 737
17

resolution of said motion, including those 

materials identified in section 8.e., then a 

deadline 6 months after Defendant files its 

answer (as it proposes below) may provide 

adequate time. 

If, however, Defendant neither moves to 

stay discovery nor produces any discovery

pending the resolution of its anticipated 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, then 

Plaintiffs believe Defendants proposed 6 

month filing deadline will not provide 

adequate time to complete the discovery 

necessary to prepare for class certification 

(including completing third-party 

discovery discussed in section 8.c.). In this 

circumstance, Plaintiffs believes that the 

deadline should at least be approximately 

10 months after Defendant files its answer 

to the operative complaint. 

Defendant’s Position: 6 months after 

Defendant files an answer to the operative 

complaint 

9. Deadline to Complete Depositions of 

Plaintiffs’ Experts who Submit 

Declarations and/or Reports in Support of 

Class Certification

30 days after filing motion for class 

certification

10. Deadline for Defendant’s Opposition to 

Motion for Class Certification, Daubert 

motions directed to Plaintiffs’ class 

certification experts, Defendant’s Class 

Certification Expert Declarations and/or 

Reports in Compliance with Rule 

26(a)(2)(B), and Production of any 

Discoverable Expert Documents that are 

Not Otherwise Required to Be Disclosed 

Under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

60 days after completing discovery 

regarding Plaintiffs’ class-certification 

experts; 90 days after filing motion for 

class certification

11. Deadline to Complete Depositions of 

Defendant’s Experts who Submit 

Declarations and/or Reports in Opposition 

to Class Certification

30 days after filing opposition to motion 

for class certification

12. Deadline for Plaintiffs’ Reply to 

Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for 

Class Certification and Daubert motions 

directed to Defendant’s class certification 

experts; Deadline for Plaintiffs’ Response 

to Daubert Motions directed to Plaintiffs’ 

class certification experts 

60 days after completing discovery 

regarding Defendant’s class-certification 

experts; 90 days after filing opposition to 

motion for class certification

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 17 of 19 PageID 738
18

13. Deadline for Defendant’s Reply to 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Daubert Motions 

directed to Plaintiffs’ class certification 

experts

14 days after Plaintiffs’ response to 

Daubert motions directed to Plaintiffs’ 

class certification experts

14. Deadline for Defendant’s Response to 

Daubert motions directed to Defendant’s 

class certification experts 

60 days after Plaintiffs file Daubert 

motions directed to Defendant’s class 

certification experts 

15. Deadline for Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support 

of Daubert motions directed to 

Defendant’s class certification experts

14 days after Defendant’s Response to 

Daubert motions directed to Plaintiffs’ 

class certification experts

16. Deadline to Complete Private Mediation 

or Settlement Conference

1 month after briefing complete on motion 

for class certification

17. Class Certification Hearing Pursuant to Court’s Schedule

18. Deadline to File Status Report and 

Proposed Scheduling Order

21 days after ruling on motion for class 

certification; 7 days before Post- Certification Case Management 

Conference

19. Post-Certification Case Management 

Conference

28 days after ruling on motion for class 

certification

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 18 of 19 PageID 739
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 21, 2022, I electronically submitted the foregoing documents 

with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the 

electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sends a “Notice of 

Electronic Filing” to all counsel who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of 

this document by electronic means.

Date: April 21, 2022 By: /s/ Ronald W. Breaux

Ronald W. Breaux, Esq.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 49 Filed 04/21/22 Page 19 of 19 PageID 740