Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cynthia Hines v. Overstock

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


February 22, 2011

CYNTHIA HINES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
OVERSTOCK, COM, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Over the course of the last three weeks, the parties have deluged the Court*fn1 with a series of letter-briefs debating an apparently contentious issue -- the setting of a briefing schedule for class certification issues.*fn2 Plaintiff contends that her opposition to defendant's already pending motion to deny class certification, as well as her own cross-motion for class certification, should not be due until April 14, 2011, 30 days after the March 15th deadline for completion of fact discovery. Defendant, which filed its motion to deny class certification on January 14, objects to plaintiff's proposal, arguing that plaintiff's opposition, as well as her cross-motion, should be served by March 15, 2011.

Plaintiff is correct that class and merits discovery have not been bifurcated. In view of that circumstance, as well as the voluminous document production recently served on plaintiff by defendant, it would be unfair to require plaintiff to commence and complete depositions and serve her motion papers by March 15, 2011. On the other hand, as plaintiff has had the benefit of defendant's moving papers since January 14, 2011, the Court fails to see the need to afford plaintiff a full month beyond the March 15th discovery deadline for briefing class certification issues.

Accordingly, the Court sets the following schedule:

By April 1, 2011, plaintiff shall serve her response to defendant's motion to deny class-certification, and shall cross-move for class-certification;

By April 15, 2011, defendant shall file its reply to its pending motion and shall serve its opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion; and Plaintiff's reply to her cross-motion is due by April 29, 2011.

Finally, the parties would be better served if counsel devoted their time and energy to completing discovery and briefing their substantive motions, rather than drafting an endless stream of replies and sur-replies on relatively trivial matters.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

ROANNE L. MANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.