Davis v. United Health Group Incorporated

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8

9 RICK DAVIS, SR., MATHEW KOOHNS, Case No. C21-01220-RSM and BRETT A. LOCKHART, SR., 10 individually and on behalf of all others ORDER RE SUBMISSION 11 similarly shared, CONCERNING CASE SCHEDULE

12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 UNITED HEALTH GROUP COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF 17 WASHINGTON, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., 18

19 Defendants.

20 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Submission Concerning Case 21 22 Schedule. Dkt. #39. On April 14, 2023, the Court issued its decision denying Defendants’ 23 Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #35. Since then, the parties have met and conferred to discuss discovery 24 and the case schedule. Dkt. #39 at 1. The parties now submit their respective proposals for a 25 case schedule. Id. 26 The parties generally agree about a proposed schedule through class certification, but 27 28 diverge thereafter. Plaintiffs seek entry of a scheduling order that tracks to and locks in the March 2025 trial date provided to the parties by the Court. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiffs believe that basing the 1 2 schedule on a fixed trial date will encourage the parties to litigate efficiently and cause the case 3 to proceed to trial more quickly. Defendants propose a schedule under which, after the Court 4 issues a decision on any class certification motion, the parties would confer to develop a schedule 5 for the next phase(s) of the case. Id. at 2. Defendants propose deferring setting a trial date until 6 after the Court issues its rulings on dispositive motions, or in the alternative that any trial occur 7 8 at least three months after any decision on dispositive motions (or as soon thereafter as the Court 9 is available). 10 “A stay is not a matter of right. It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion that is 11 dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 12 13 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). In considering a request for a stay, factors weighed by the Court 14 may include “‘the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or 15 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of 16 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of 17 law which could be expected to result from a stay.’” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 18 19 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The 20 moving party bears the burden to show a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 21 (1997). 22 Here, Defendants argue the Court should stay discovery and other pretrial deadlines 23 pending the resolution of any class certification motion because “it is premature to set a trial date 24 25 before the Court has ruled on class certification or dispositive motions, which could have a 26 significant impact on the scope of any trial in this case.” Dkt. #39 at 2. While Defendants may 27 prefer a particular order of resolution, they do not demonstrate that the orderly course of justice 28 would be better served through imposition of a stay. Defendants fail to establish a stay in this 1 2 matter would be appropriate or warranted at this time. The Court therefore ORDERS the 3 following case schedule, keeping the current expected trial date: 4

5 12/15/2023 Substantial completion of fact 6 discovery 7 8 1/12/2024 Disclosure of Plaintiffs’ class certification expert 9 name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of 10 the subject matter of the expected testimony. 11 12 13 1/26/2024 Class certification motion and service of Plaintiffs’ class- 14 certification expert report (if any) 15 2/23/2024 Disclosure of Defendants’ class 16 certification expert 17 name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected 18 testimony. 19 3/08/2024 Opposition to class certification and 20 service of Defendants’ class- 21 certification expert report (if any)

22 4/5/2024 Reply to class certification and 23 service of rebuttal class- certification expert report (if any) 24 25 7/5/2024 Substantial completion of any supplemental fact discovery 26 27 7/26/2024 Plaintiffs’ merits expert reports due 28 8/23/2024 Defendants’ merits expert reports 1 due 2 9/20/2024 Close of expert discovery 3 4 10/18/2024 Close of all discovery; dispositive motion(s) filed 5

6 11/22/2024 Opposition(s) to dispositive motion(s) 7

8 12/13/2024 Reply in support of dispositive motion(s) 9 10 1/17/2025 Plaintiffs’ pretrial statement 11 1/27/2025 Defendants’ pretrial statement 12 2/20/2025 Proposed pretrial order 13 14 3/25/2025 Trial begins (est. 10 trial days) 15 16 DATED this 12th day of July, 2023. 17

18 19 A 20 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28