Carl Washington v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 7, 2019
• Docket: 4:15-cv-03504
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-cv-03504-YGR

6 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE: MOTION TO 7 vs. SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF NEW YORK AND 8 CVS HEALTH, ET AL., ARIZONA CLASSES 9 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 386

10 11 On August 19, 2019, the Court held a further case management conference in the above- 12 captioned action. (See Dkt. No. 370.) During the conference, the Court indicated that it would 13 allow plaintiffs “a very short, very short period of time . . . to identify an appropriate plaintiff or 14 plaintiffs and any appropriate discovery and motion practice” relevant to the proposed New York 15 and Arizona classes. (Dkt. No. 373 at 5:24-25–6:1-12.) The Court set a deadline for plaintiffs’ 16 motion to substitute the class representatives for the proposed New York and Arizona classes of 17 September 9, 2019. (Id. at 13:7-9.) Plaintiffs so filed. (See Dkt. No. 376.) Therein, plaintiffs 18 identified Messrs. Joseph Luzier and Aaron Allen as proposed class representatives for the New 19 York class. (Id. at 3.) 20 According to plaintiffs’ counsel, unexpected circumstances have caused a slight delay. 21 Thus, now before the Court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion regarding the September 9, 2019 22 motion to substitute class representatives.1 (Dkt. No. 386 (“Admin Motion”.) Specifically, 23 plaintiffs represent that proposed representatives Luzier and Allen “are no longer able to proceed 24 as proposed plaintiffs and class representatives for the proposed New York class due to 25 unexpected medical issues that arose after the Motion to Substitute was filed on September 9, 26 2019.” (Id. at 2.) Based thereon, plaintiffs now seek leave of Court to file an amended motion to 27 1 substitute, replacing Luzier and Allen with Stephen Sullivan as the proposed New York class 2 representative. (/d. at 3.) Plaintiffs assert, and defendants do not dispute (see Dkt. No. 388 3 (“Opp.”)), that they informed defendants that Sullivan’s discovery responses would be served on 4 || the morning of September 30, 2019 and that Sullivan would be available for deposition on 5 October 4, 9, 10, or 11, 2019. (Admin Motion at 4.) Plaintiffs also proposed continuing the 6 || deadline for defendants’ response to the amended motion to substitute to October 14, 2019. □□□□ 7 However, plaintiffs have not filed, as an exhibit to the administrative motion or otherwise, the 8 amended motion to substitute that they would like to file. On Friday, October 4, 2019, defendants 9 filed their opposition to the pending administrative motion.” (Opp.) 10 In light of the Luzier and Allen’s health issues, and the speed with which plaintiffs moved ll to substitute, the Court finds the good cause standard satisfied. (See Admin Motion.) See Branch 12 Banking & TR. Co. v. D.M.S.IL, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017) (‘The good cause 13 standard of Rule 16(b) primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”’). 14 || However, the Court is not convinced that the proposed schedule provides sufficient time for the 3 15 || defendants. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiffs’ administrative motion. 16 || Defendant’s opposition to the motion to amend is vacated pending further Court order. The 2 17 parties shall meet and confer and provide the Court with a proposed scheduling order no later than 18 close of business on Wednesday, October 9, 2019. 19 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 385, 386, and 387. 20 IT Is SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: October 7, 2019 Leave Pagecteflecs,— 73 YVONNE GONZALEZROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 07 Defendants also submit a motion to file a portion of this opposition under seal in light of the personal health information contained therein. (Dkt. No. 387.) The Court GRANTS that 28 motion.