Kirkpatrick v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2011-cv-00238

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY [Transferred from California Northern on 9/7/2011.]

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 WILLIAM HELM, et al., No. C 08-01184 SI 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 10 v. BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S For the Northern District of California 11 ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC, REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL United States District Court DISCOVERY 12 Defendant. / 13 14 Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is presently set for hearing on September 10, 15 2010. Alderwoods has filed a request to extend the briefing and hearing schedule on the motion by three 16 weeks. In view of the length of the motion and accompanying papers, Alderwoods states that it requires 17 additional time to respond, and the Court finds that this is an appropriate reason for granting the 18 requested extension. Additionally, the motion for class certification filed in the related Bryant action 19 is also set to be heard on September 10. Continuing the hearing on the motion filed in this case will 20 therefore allow full but separate consideration of the motions. Alderwoods' motion to extend time is 21 accordingly GRANTED, and the briefing and hearing schedule on plaintiffs' renewed motion for class 22 certification is modified as follows: 23 Opposition: September 10, 2010 24 Reply: September 17, 2010 25 Hearing: October 1, 2010 26 Alderwoods has also requested leave to conduct an additional 15 depositions with respect to 27 plaintiffs' "On-Call" class. Alderwoods asserts that the definition of this class is "significantly 28 different" from the definition given in plaintiffs' first certification motion, and contends that it will be 1 denied due process if it is not given the opportunity to conduct additional discovery. After reviewing 2 both motions for class certification, however, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the definition of the 3 On-Call class has simply been narrowed. Plaintiffs asserted the piece rate theory they now advance 4 during the first round of briefing, and the Court addressed the theory in ruling on the motion. 5 Alderwoods has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery on plaintiffs' piece rate theory, and the 6 Court does not believe that additional depositions are justified at this time. The request for leave to 7 conduct 15 additional depositions is therefore DENIED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 For the Northern District of California 11 Dated: August 11, 2010 United States District Court SUSAN ILLSTON 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2