Opinion ID: 177521
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Viability Briefing

Text: During the same conference call, the District Court also appointed a Steering Committeecomposed of various lawyers from the law firms representing the class, the defendants, and the Objectorsto establish a briefing schedule to address the merits of the potential TILA/HOEPA claims. The Court explained that it envisioned a bifurcated analysis on remand: (1) it would first address the viability of potential TILA/HOEPA claims; and (2) then address adequacy and the other Rule 23 elements. Mr. Vaughn agreed with this structure: The Court: I think the first thing we have to do is determine the viability of these claims. If I determine that they are viable, then I think the argument as to whether or not the named representative you have can adequately represent those members of your class who have such claims ... is Question No. 2. Mr. Vaughn: We agree with that, Your Honor. The Court: If I say they're not viable because of statute of limitations, or the elements can't be met, or something like that, then I think that the wind might be out of your sails here. Mr. Vaughn: Your Honor, I think you're right. The Steering Committee negotiated a briefing schedule allowing all interested parties to submit briefs on the viability issue. The scheduling order also provided for an exchange of certain loan files, and stipulated that no other formal discovery would occur. Counsel for the Objectors and the defendants submitted extensive briefing dealing with the TILA/HOEPA issues. Class counsel, however, did not brief the issue. Instead, they submitted a filing to the District Court stating that they (i) expect[ed] that counsel for the Defendants group will file with the Court an initial `viability' brief that thoroughly discusses the legal backdrop of the class-based TILA/HOEPA claims that are in dispute, and (ii) concluded, after much reflection, that [the] Court would not benefit from a brief by [the named plaintiffs] that would discuss much of the same authority set forth in the initial brief filed by the Defendants. Counsel elected to wait and see which arguments ... are advanced in the initial submission by the Objectors, and thereafter file a brief with a comprehensive recitation of relevant facts that demonstrates: 1) what [counsel] learned through their investigation into the underlying conduct in dispute; 2) how that factual information bears upon the class-based TILA/HOEPA theories at issue; and[] 3) the strategy underlying the specific legal claims that they elected to pursue in this litigation, given the facts that they learned in their investigation. Though class counsel in fact submitted this brief, the District Court, as we discuss below, did not discuss it in ruling on the viability question.