Page 1 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MONTEVILLE SLOAN, JR., RAUL 

SIQUEIROS, TODD AND JILL CRALLEY,

JOSEPH BRANNAN, LARRY GOODWIN, 

MARC PERKINS, MARC PERKINS, THOMAS 

SHORTER, DERICK BRADFORD, GABRIEL 

DEL VALLE, KEVIN HANNEKEN, EDWIN 

AND KATELYN DOEPEL, DAN MADSON, 

JAMES FAULKNER, JOSEPH OLIVIER, 

SCOTT SMITH, ROSS DAHL, DREW 

PETERSON, MICHAEL WARE, STEVE 

KITCHEN, JOHN KNOLL, BARBARA 

MOLINA, DENNIS VITA, STEVEN EHRKE, 

THOMAS GULLING, RONALD JONES, MIKE 

WARPINSKI, WILLIAM MARTELL, JOHN 

GRAZIANO, JOSHUA BYRGE, RUDY 

SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER THACKER, 

KELLY HARRIS, JAMES ROBERTSON, and 

JONAS BEDNAREK, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE 

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Date: April 24, 2018

Time: 10:30 a.m.

Courtroom 5

Honorable Edward M. Chen
Page 2 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Counsel for the above-captioned Plaintiffs and Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”)

respectfully submit this Amended Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Proposed 

Order, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-9, and this Court’s 

Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California (effective January 17, 

2017). 

II. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

A. Jurisdiction and Service

The Third Amended Complaint asserts subject-matter jurisdiction based on federal 

question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and/or the 

Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiffs have served GM. 

B. Relevant Factual Background

1. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Allegations

This case involves the inherently defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine that was

designed, manufactured, and installed by GM in its most popular SUVs and full-sized pickup 

trucks, dating back to model year 2007 vehicles. Due to General Motors Corporation’s 

bankruptcy, only model year 2010-2014 SUVs and pickups with the defective Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engine (the “Class Vehicles”) are at issue in this case. 

The Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines consume an extremely high volume of oil that 

far exceeds industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This excessive oil consumption 

results in low oil levels, insufficient engine lubricity levels, internal engine component damage, 

engine misfire, and stalling. The primary cause of the excessive oil consumption is that the 

piston rings that GM installed within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines do not maintain 

sufficient tension to keep oil in the crankcase. In addition, the Active Fuel Management 

system that GM included in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines contributes to the 

excessive oil consumption by spraying oil directly at the piston skirts. The PCV system within 

the engines further contributes to the excessive oil consumption problem by vacuuming oil 

from the valvetrain into the intake system. 
Page 3 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

The Class Vehicles do not warn drivers that their vehicles are consuming excessive 

amounts of oil and they also fail to provide drivers with advance warning that their vehicles are 

dangerously low on oil. In fact, GM compounded the excessive oil consumption problem by 

installing an operator assistance program within each Class Vehicle called the Oil Life 

Monitoring System, which purportedly informs drivers of when their vehicle is due for an oil 

change. Despite its name, the Oil Life Monitoring System, however, does not inform drivers 

when their vehicle is low on oil or otherwise warn of a low oil condition. The Oil Life 

Monitoring System thus exacerbates the excessive oil consumption problem by encouraging 

drivers to drive their vehicles well past the point at which the lack of lubricity resulting from 

the excessive oil consumption will result in engine damage.

GM has long known of the excessive oil consumption problem in its Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, and has issued multiple Technical Service Bulletins on this issue, 

attributing its cause to oil getting past the piston rings. Despite this knowledge, GM has never 

disclosed the oil consumption defect to consumers. Rather, GM has allowed drivers of the 

Class Vehicles to continue driving those vehicles well past the point at which their vehicles had 

depleted their oil volumes below levels required for proper engine lubrication and safe

operation. 

2. GM’s Statement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Allegations

GM denies that its 5.3 liter Gen IV Vortec engines or their piston rings are defective. 

Oil consumption issues in model year 2010 through 2013 vehicles equipped with these engines 

were infrequent and were not caused by any engine or piston ring defects. The Technical 

Service Bulletins cited in plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, publicly available on the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website, concern potential oil consumption 

issues unrelated to oil rings that were addressed during the 2011 model year. Consistent with 

the absence of any pervasive design defect, the Third Amended Complaint alleges that only a 

handful of the hundreds of thousand of owners of model year 2010 through 2013 vehicles 

experienced unresolved oil consumption issues. In this connection, GM notes that pressure 

control valve (PCV) and Automatic Fuel Management (AFM) issues that could sometimes 
Page 4 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

increase oil consumption were addressed by production changes during the 2011 model year 

and free-of-charge warranty repairs for model year 2010 and 2011 vehicles produced prior to 

the production changes.

GM also denies that the Oil Life Monitoring System is defective. As plaintiffs admit, 

the Oil Life Monitoring System is not designed to directly measure or report oil levels but 

instead uses an algorithm based on engine operation and performance data to predict when the 

quality of engine oil is nearing the end of its life and should be changed. As explained in GM 

Owners Manuals, customers are responsible for monitoring engine oil levels using regular

“dipstick” checks. 

C. Legal Issues

1. Plaintiffs’ Statement

Following the Court’s resolution of GM’s motions to dismiss, the remaining issues 

are ones of fact (as discussed above) rather than law.

2. GM’s Statement

Following the Court’s ruling on the pleading issues raised by GM’s motions to 

dismiss, the following legal issues remain pending:

(a) Many or all of the plaintiffs and purported class members have not suffered 

any injury in fact caused by alleged violation of state consumer protection statutes, alleged 

breach of implied warranties, alleged common law “fraudulent omissions” or other 

allegedly actionable conduct by GM.

(b) Plaintiffs cannot prove any actionable misrepresentations of fact by GM.

(c) GM’s 5.3 liter Vortec engine did not create an unreasonable safety hazard that 

GM knew about and had a pre-sale duty to disclose.

(d) Many or all of the plaintiffs cannot show the varying levels of reliance 

required by consumer protection statutes or common law in their states.

(e) Statutes of limitations bar the consumer protection, implied warranty, fraud, 

unjust enrichment and other claims of plaintiffs and purported class members whose claims 

are untimely based on the passage of time and the specific elements they must prove to 
Page 5 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

demonstrate fraudulent concealment tolling under the laws of their states.

(f) Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment (quasi-contract) claims are barred because their 

substantive claims provide no basis for ordering the remedy of restitution.

(g) Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the Rule 23 requirements for class certification, 

including without limitation, lack of predominant common issues, typicality, adequacy of 

representation, superiority and manageability

(h) Applicable law prohibits certification of a nationwide class.

(i) Plaintiffs’ statutory consumer protection claims under the laws of one or more 

states are barred by their lack of any fiduciary or other confidential relationship with GM 

that would create a duty of disclosure.

(j) Plaintiff’s statutory consumer protection claims under the laws of one or more 

states are barred because the statute does not include or prohibit omissions.

(k) Plaintiffs’ statutory consumer protection claims under the laws of one or more 

states are barred by their lack of contractual privity with GM.

(l) Plaintiff’s Counts 51, 53 and 55 under Louisiana law are pre-empted by La. 

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.52 which provides the exclusive remedy for liability claims 

against product manufacturers, except for plaintiff’s claim for redhibition (Count 50).

(m) Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages under the statutory consumer 

protection acts of one or more states are barred because these statutes do not authorize 

punitive damages awards.

(n) The statutory consumer protection laws of one or more states do not permit 

class actions.

(o) The statutory consumer protection laws of one or more states do not permit 

class actions for the recovery of damages.

(p) Plaintiffs’ statutory consumer protection claims under the laws of one or more 

states are barred by the economic loss rule.

///

///
Page 6 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

D. Motions

On February 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint.

(Dkt. No. 29.) GM moved to dismiss that complaint on April 10, 2017. (Dkt. No. 47.) On 

August 1, 2017, the Court granted GM’s motion, and gave Plaintiffs leave to replead. (Dkt. 

No. 62.)

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. No. 67) on August 

31, 2017. On October 10, 2017, GM moved to dismiss that complaint. (Dkt. No. 70.) 

Plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 73.) GM filed its reply on 

December 1, 2017. (Dkt. No. 74.) Pursuant to the Court’s direction, both parties thereafter 

filed Supplemental Briefs addressing personal jurisdiction issues. (Dkt. Nos. 86, 87, 88.) On 

February 7, 20178, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and gave Plaintiffs leave to replead. (Dkt. No. 99.) 

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint. (Dkt. No. 

107.) On April 6, 2018, answered the Third Amended Complaint, denying its material 

allegations and asserting multiple defenses. (Dkt. No. 109.)

The Parties agree that it is too early to predict all potential motion practice that may 

occur in this litigation, but Plaintiffs currently anticipate moving for class certification and both 

Parties anticipate moving for summary judgment.

E. Amendment of Pleadings

The Parties propose November 16, 2018 as the deadline for amending the pleadings. 

F. Evidence Preservation

The parties have instructed their clients regarding their evidence preservation 

obligations, have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored 

Information (“ESI Guidelines”) and have agreed to an ESI protocol governing preservation and 

production of discoverable documents within the possession, custody or control of the Parties.

G. Disclosures

The Parties conducted the Rule 26(f) conference on April 21, 2017 and exchanged their 

initial disclosures in May 2017.
Page 7 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

H. Discovery

The Parties have submitted, and the Court has entered, a stipulation governing ESI and 

privilege logs (Dkt. No. 94) and a stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 106).

Plaintiffs have served their first sets of document requests and interrogatories, and GM 

served responses on March 28, 2018. GM has served its first sets of document requests and 

interrogatories, with Plaintiffs’ responses due on April 30, 2018.

The Parties intend to seek further discovery in the form of document requests, 

interrogatories, requests for admissions, and/or depositions regarding issues pertinent to class 

certification, the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, and GM’s defenses.

The Parties agree to the presumptive limit of twenty-five (25) written interrogatories set 

forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.

Plaintiffs propose that, deviating from Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, each Party shall be allowed to 

take up to fifteen (15) depositions without leave of Court. GM believes ten (10) are sufficient.

I. Class Actions

1. Plaintiffs’ Statement

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-9, Plaintiffs state that they seek to maintain this case as a 

class action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs seek to 

represent a nationwide class of current or former owners or lessees of 2010-2013 GM vehicles 

fitted with GM’s defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek 

to represent statewide classes of current or former owners or lessees of 2010-2013 GM 

vehicles fitted with GM’s defective Generation IV 5 Vortec 5300 Engines. 

Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that there are not less than 2,000,000 

members of the nationwide class. There are common questions of law and fact, which 

predominate over any issues affecting the individual class members. These questions include: 

whether GM’s Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines have an inherent defect resulting in 

excessive oil consumption, whether GM was aware of this inherent defect, and whether GM 

concealed this inherent defect from consumers. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the 

other class members because Plaintiffs and the other class members each paid for GM vehicles 
Page 8 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

that consume an extraordinarily high volume of oil and suffered damages as a result. 

Plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with those of the other class members and Plaintiffs have 

retained competent counsel to represent them and the other class members. 

As stated in Exhibit A, attached hereto, Plaintiffs will move for class certification on or 

before December 20, 2018. 

The Parties have agreed, subject to Court approval, to a “bellwether” approach to

reduce any burden associated with class certification. Under this approach, Plaintiffs’ class 

certification motion will be limited to five states: California, two other States to be identified 

by Plaintiffs, and two other States to be identified by GM. The Parties agreed that GM can 

serve written discovery on all of the Plaintiffs, but GM will not depose Plaintiffs other than the 

bellwether state Plaintiffs prior to the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification, Plaintiffs and GM agreed to reserve their rights (after the Court’s ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification) to move for or oppose class certification, and take 

appropriates discovery, with respect to Plaintiffs in the non-bellwether States. Plaintiffs are 

currently prepared to identify their two additional bellwether States.

2. GM’s Statement

GM will oppose class certification on the grounds inter alia that plaintiffs cannot satisfy 

the commonality, predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23. Only a small 

fraction of the model year 2010 through 2013 vehicles that are the subject of this action have 

experienced oil consumption issues, determining the cause(s) of any such issue would require 

individual inspection of each vehicle, and these issues may have already been corrected in 

production, through service parts, and/or eliminated by warranty repairs. GM will identify its 

two additional “bellwether” states at or shortly after the Case Management Conference.

J. Related Cases

To the best of the Parties’ knowledge, there are no other pending related cases.

///

///

///
Page 9 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

K. Relief

1. Plaintiff’s Statement

Plaintiffs seek:

• Certification of the proposed classes;

• Appointment of class representatives and Class Counsel; 

• An order temporarily and permanently enjoining GM from continuing the 

alleged unfair business practices;

• Costs, restitution, actual damages, statutory damages and punitive damages 

in an amount to be determined at trial;

• An order requiring GM to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any 

amounts awarded; 

• An award of costs and attorneys’ fees; and such other or further relief as 

may be appropriate.

2. GM’s Statement

GM is not seeking any relief at this time. GM denies that plaintiffs or their counsel are 

entitled to any of the relief that they are requesting.

L. Settlement and ADR

To date, the Parties in this case have not engaged in settlement negotiation or ADR

efforts. The Parties, however, have conferred regarding ADR and agreed to participate in 

private ADR within eight months of the Case Management Conference. (Dkt. No. 64)

M. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes

The Parties do not consent to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 

N. Other Reference

To the extent not handled by this Court, the Parties agree that discovery matters should 

be referred to a Magistrate Judge of this Court. Additionally, this case is not suitable for 

reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation. 

///
Page 10 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

O. Narrowing of Issues

The parties respectfully submit that it is premature to consider agreement to narrow 

issues for trial or to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial. 

P. Expedited Trial Procedure

The Parties respectfully submit that this case is not appropriate for proceedings 

pursuant to the expedited trial procedure of General Order No. 64, Attachment A. 

Q. Scheduling

The Parties have set forth their proposed dates for the scheduling of initial disclosures, 

designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference,

and trial in Exhibit A, attached hereto.

R. Trial

Plaintiffs have demanded a trial by jury on all issues so triable. GM contends that 

plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on its claims for equitable relief (e.g., injunction, 

restitution) or on its claims for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, class certification, 

appointment of class counsel or an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. The Parties 

respectfully submit that it is premature to estimate an expected length of the trial.

S. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons

The parties have filed their Disclosures of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons

(Dkt. 50 and 54).

T. Professional Conduct

Counsel for both Plaintiffs and GM have reviewed the Guidelines and Standards of 

Professional Conduct of this Court as set forth in Civil L.R. 11-4 and General Order 40(2).

U. Other Matters

The Parties do not believe any other matters are appropriate for discussion at this time.

///

///

///

///
Page 11 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

DATED: April 17, 2018

/s/ Jennie Lee Anderson

Jennie Lee Anderson

Lori E. Andrus

ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP

155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415-986-1400

jennie@andrusanderson.com

lori@andrusanderson.com

Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice)

Mark A. DiCello (pro hac vice)

John E. Tangren (pro hac vice)

Daniel R. Ferri (pro hac vice)

DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC

Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: 312-214-7900

alevitt@dlcfirm.com

dferri@dlcfirm.com

jtangren@dlcfirm.com

W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III (pro hac vice)

H. Clay Barnett, III (pro hac vice)

Archie I. Grubb, II (pro hac vice)

Andrew E. Brashier (pro hac vice)

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

272 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: 334-269-2343

Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com

Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com

Archie.Grubb@Beasleyallen.com

Andrew.Brashier@Beasleyallen.com

Nicholas R. Rockforte (pro hac vice to be filed)

Christopher L. Coffin (pro hac vice to be filed)

PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.

1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Telephone: 504-355-0086

nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

Marcus Rael (pro hac vice motion to be filed)

ROBLES, RAEL & ANAYA, P.C.

500 Marquette NW, Suite 700

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Telephone: 505-242-2228

marcus@roblesrael.com
Page 12 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

Anthony J. Garcia, Esq. (pro hac vice)

AG LAW

742 South Village Circle

Tampa, Florida 33606

Telephone: 813-259-9555

anthony@aglawinc.com

Timothy J. Becker (pro hac vice)

JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC

444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Telephone: 612-436-1800

tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

Ben Finley (pro hac vice motion to be filed)

THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.

200 13th Street

Columbus, Georgia 31901

Telephone: 706-322-6226

bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com

Eric J. Haag (pro hac vice)

ATTERBURY, KAMMER & HAAG, S.C.

8500 Greenway Boulevard, Suite 103

Middleton, Wisconsin 53562

Telephone: 608-821-4600

ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

/s/ Joseph J. Ybarra

Joseph J. Ybarra (SBN 218130)

Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com

HUANG YBARRA GELBERG & MAY LLP

550 South Hope Street, Suite 1850

Los Angeles, California 90071

Telephone: 213-884-4902

Gregory R. Oxford (SBN 62333)

goxford@icclawfirm.com

ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD LLP

21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950

Torrance, California 90503

Telephone: 310-316-1990

Attorneys for Defendant General Motors LLC 
Page 13 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The above AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & 

PROPOSED ORDER is approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties 

shall comply with its provisions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

EDWARD M. CHEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 14 of 14 Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER

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

EXHIBIT A

Plaintiffs respectfully propose the following Case Management Schedule:

EVENT DATE

Last day to file a motion to amend 

pleadings 

November 16, 2018

Deadline for the Parties to substantially 

complete their document productions 

October 5, 2018

Fact Discovery Cut-Off November 16, 2018

Motion for Class Certification and 

Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(2) Class Certification 

Expert Disclosures/Reports

December 20, 2018

Opposition to Motion for Class 

Certification and GM’s Rule 26(a)(2) Class 

Certification Expert Disclosures/Reports

March 15, 2019

Reply in Support of Motion for Class 

Certification and Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Class 

Certification Expert Disclosures/Reports

April 29, 2019

Hearing on Motion for Class Certification To be determined by the Court

Opening Expert Reports To be scheduled after ruling on class 

certification

To be scheduled after ruling on class 

certification

To be scheduled after ruling on class 

certification

Expert Discovery Complete To be scheduled after ruling on class 

certification

Last Day for the Hearing of Dispositive 

Motions

To be scheduled after ruling on class 

certification

Final Pretrial Conference To be determined by the Court

Jury Trial To be determined by the Court