Transcript of Proceedings held on 08/17/2021 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 63, N.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-01418)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 63 · 2021-08-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Pages 
Pages 
Pages 
Pages 1 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 11
11
11
11  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
Before The Honorable Edward M. Chen, Judge  
CAT BROOKS, individually and 
)
on behalf of all others 
)
similarly situated, et al.,   )
                               ) 
           Plaintiffs,        )
                               ) 
  VS.                          )  NO. C 
 NO. C 
 NO. C 
 NO. C 21-01418-EMC
21-01418-EMC
21-01418-EMC
21-01418-EMC 
                               ) 
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,   )
                               )   
           Defendant.       
)
                               ) 
 
                           San Francisco, California 
                           Tuesday, August 17, 2021 
 
TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE 
TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE 
TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE 
TRANSCRIPT OF REMOTE VIDEOCONFERENCE
VIDEOCONFERENCE
VIDEOCONFERENCE
VIDEOCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
 PROCEEDINGS
 PROCEEDINGS
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
APPEARANCES
APPEARANCES
APPEARANCES
APPEARANCES: (Appearances via Zoom videoconference.) 
 
For Plaintiffs:         
                       
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 
                       
505 14th Street - Suite 1110 
                       
Oakland, California 94612 
                  
BY:
BY:
BY:
BY:  ANDRE M. MURA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
ANDRE M. MURA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
ANDRE M. MURA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
ANDRE M. MURA, ATTORNEY AT LAW                   
                  
                   
                  
 
For Defendant:         
                       
PERKINS COIE LLP 
                       
1201 Third Avenue - Suite 4800 
                       
Seattle, Washington 98101 
                 
BY:
BY:
BY:
BY:  SUSAN D. FAHRINGER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUSAN D. FAHRINGER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUSAN D. FAHRINGER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUSAN D. FAHRINGER, ATTORNEY AT LAW              
             
              
             
                       
                       
                       
                       
NICOLA C. MENALDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
NICOLA C. MENALDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
NICOLA C. MENALDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
NICOLA C. MENALDO, ATTORNEY AT LAW  
 
 
 
         
 
 
Reported By:  Ruth Levine Ekhaus, RMR, RDR, FCRR 
              Official Reporter, CSR No. 12219 
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 1 of 12

     2
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
Tuesday
Tuesday
Tuesday
Tuesday - 
 - 
 - 
 - August
August
August
August 17
17
17
17, 
, 
, 
, 2021
2021
2021
2021
                     2:43 p
2:43 p
2:43 p
2:43 p.m.
.m.
.m.
.m. 
P R O C E E D I N G S
P R O C E E D I N G S
P R O C E E D I N G S
P R O C E E D I N G S 
---o0o---
---o0o---
---o0o---
---o0o--- 
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:  Calling Civil Action 21-1418, Brooks, et
al. versus Thompson Reuters Corporation.
Counsel, please state your appearances -- 
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Oops.  Sorry.  I hit the wrong button.
Sorry about that.
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:  Counsel, please state your appearances for
the record, beginning with counsel for plaintiffs.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Good afternoon.  Andre Mura for the
plaintiffs.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  All right.  Good afternoon, Mr. Mura.
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  Good after, Your Honor.  Susan
Fahringer for Thompson Reuters.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you and good afternoon,
Ms. Fahringer.
MS. MENALDO:
MS. MENALDO:
MS. MENALDO:
MS. MENALDO:  Good afternoon.  Nicola Menaldo for
Thompson Reuters as well.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  All right.  Good afternoon, Ms. Menaldo.
Okay.  Where do we go from here?  I guess my first
question is, you filed an ADR certificate, according to the
statement, but for some reason, I didn't -- I don't have that.  
What are the parties' thoughts about timing and format of
any ADR process?
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 2 of 12

     3
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Your Honor, plaintiffs would be open to
private mediation.  And, in terms of a schedule, we're open to
proceeding along that track as defendants feel comfortable.  So
if that -- if that is in agreement with defendants, then we can
discuss internally what a schedule would like look.
We did propose a deadline to pursue private mediation, and
we do find that that's helpful in a case schedule.  I believe,
Thomson Reuters suggested not including a deadline.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Yeah.  Your deadline, at least in the
schedule, is about a year after discovery begins.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Okay.  What are defendant's thoughts?
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  We're not opposed to mediation either,
and private mediation, I think, makes the most sense in a case
like this.  So I think the parties are in agreement on that.  
And we're not opposed to a deadline; we just didn't know
that it needed to be included in the case schedule.  A deadline
a year from now would be fine.  But either way, I think that
the parties are in a position to talk about that as discussions
ensue.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, the big question that comes
up in these cases, these putative class action cases, is
whether the parties are open to having discussions prior to
class cert, or is this one of those where the parties want to
go through the class cert process first.  
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 3 of 12

     4
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
So I guess -- I don't know if you've had that discussion
or thought about it, but I would like to get your sense of
that.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  I think plaintiffs are amenable to having
the discussion before class cert; sometimes that's fruitful.
So I don't have a particular preference about doing it, waiting
until after class certification for -- to have that dialogue.
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  And for the defendant's part, I think,
the -- the approach is the same.  We're open to discussions at
any time, open to them before class cert, as well after.  I
would want to not preclude us from having ongoing discussions,
obviously.  But I think counsel have been very cooperative and
professional with each other throughout the case, so I don't
think there is any issue in terms of beginning discussions at
any time.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Okay.  Well, I like to encourage early
discussions.  Especially in a complicated case, it makes sense.
Let me ask, if we are about to embark on discovery, the
plaintiff is proposing, you know, exchange of initial
disclosures fairly soon, and then, you know, within about
six months, disclosure of class cert experts, and go through
that process and then filing the motion really sort of
nine months, looks like, is what you're proposing.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  I think the defendant has a little --
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 4 of 12

     5
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
slightly elongated schedule, 14 months.  But is that the
sequence of things that you -- I guess you're expecting fairly
extensive class cert expert testimony in this case.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Yes, Your Honor.  We intend to proceed
with -- there is no request to bifurcate discovery, so we would
seek discovery related to the class and the merits at the same
time.  We find that's most productive for the case and most
efficient.  And so the current schedule just anticipates that
that would be the discovery process.  
And our timeline is a little faster than defendant's.  It
would be our motion on class cert.  We feel comfortable that we
can -- that this schedule is workable for us in terms of
getting the discovery we need before we get our motion on file.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  All right.  And, essentially, you're
talking about filing that motion, really, nine months from now,
which puts us around May -- May or June, it sounds like.
That sounds like a lot of time.  I mean, maybe not enough
in defendant's eyes, but that seems like a lot of time.
Is there some reason why that's not sufficient time,
Ms. Fahringer or Ms. Menaldo?
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  Yeah, a couple of thoughts on that,
Your Honor.  
We tried -- in our proposal, we tried to keep pretty
closely to case schedules that the Court has adopted in the
most similar cases we could find.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 5 of 12

     6
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
We think that the -- there are a couple of meaningful
differences between our respective proposals.  One of them, as
you noted, is that ours is generally a little bit elongated,
but not unusually so.  
And the second is that we don't know what sort of class
experts plaintiffs will designate and there is a very short
timeline for designation of rebuttal experts in response under
their proposal.  
So that -- so one issue relates to sort of the timing of
the class cert motion.  Another issue relates to the discovery
around that that would support that motion.
And so we think our proposal is thoughtful and tries to
manage those issues in a way that makes -- that makes a lot of
sense.  So that's -- those would be my overarching points.  
And as you point out, they might feel like -- might feel
like a long time from now.  But, you know, August was here
before I knew it this year, and I think May will be here quite
quickly -- especially because we don't know what's going to be
happening with COVID.  We've got a lot of potential witnesses
who are not in state and we can't, you know, manage all of the
schedules that we're going to need to manage with the unknowns
that we have.
So as a result of all of that, we thought that our
schedule was the most realistic, and also was not unduly
lengthy.  It wasn't slow-walking anything and it was quite --
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 6 of 12

     7
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
you know, we spent a lot of time on this.  And both parties
spent a lot of time negotiating this, and really wrestled with
how to make this work in the most efficient way possible.  
And the final -- sorry for the long-winded answer.  But
the final observation is that if we're going to be -- and I am
certainly not opposed and the defendant is not opposed to
having exploratory, ongoing discussions about possible
resolution of this case.  It doesn't make sense to have an --
essentially, an expedited timeline for class certification and
class-related discovery.  
It's a very, very complex case, potentially.  And I think
time will benefit both parties, especially because this is a
very reasonable -- we think our proposal is quite reasonable.  
And now I will stop.  You can tell we put a lot of thought
into this, both sides, I think.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  And once the motion is filed, there are
not that many differences in terms of the staggering the time
for the opposition.  You've given yourselves several weeks
between opposition and motion, and opposition and reply, it
appears.
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  The couple of -- the main differences
that I see are the briefing schedule on the -- on the -- you
know, the briefing for the class certification motion; there is
that difference.  I'm not sure if the Court would capture that
in that description.  But after that, I think, yeah, we've
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 7 of 12

     8
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
got -- we've got generally similar -- similar deadlines.  
The plaintiffs' deadline for close of fact discovery is a
little longer than ours, but not by much.  And bar- -- our
following deadlines were mostly intended to take into account
that we don't know what's going to happen in response to a
class cert motion.  I think it's going to be an interesting
motion potentially, especially in light of the Court's ruling
yesterday.  And so, because of that, we thought that it might
be most efficient to regroup and revisit what happens next in
the case once the Court rules on the class certification
motion.
So that was why -- on the defendant's proposal, that's why
there was sort of a bookmark for those following deadlines
because we thought that there might be some meaningful unknowns
that might moot some of the thinking today.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  All right.  Well, here is -- here's what
I'm going to do:  I'm going to direct the parties to stipulate
to a schedule that calls for the motion -- that's the key
triggering point -- the motion for class certification to be
filed 11 months.  I think that's plenty of time.  I know that
one wants 14, the other wants nine.  It seems to me, even if
this is a complicated case, that's a lot of time to do it.
And then, to work out your briefing schedule -- I'm sure
you can compromise in terms of how many weeks between each
brief.  And the fact that there would have already been
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 8 of 12

     9
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
disclosure of class certification experts that -- it seems to
me, that takes some of the necessary time out.  Because a lot
of times you file, then you disclose an expert, then you've got
to take the deposition.  So that's already been done.  That
suggests you don't need a huge amount of time in between, but,
you know, a reasonable amount time.  
And then, the only thing I ask is that the date set for
the actual hearing -- give me three weeks between the reply
brief and that date.  So -- and you can pick a date.  I haven't
done the math, but my guess is if -- 11 months from now, that's
July, we'd probably hear this thing in September or --
September or October of '22.  Gosh.  That seems like a long
ways off, but as you say, time does fly.  So I'd like to use
that.  And then, I do think it's fair to set a close of fact
discovery two months after that because there is going to be a
lot to absorb.  
And I don't want to set a trial date yet, other than to
say it will follow fairly quickly from class cert.  But I --
without knowing what the case is going to look like if there is
class cert and, if so, what the scope looks like, I'm reluctant
to set a trial date.  But I think you should know that there is
going to be a close of fact discovery two months after a ruling
on the class cert, so you can begin to anticipate that.  And
then, we'll fill in the rest of the dates as we get there.  
But the one thing is, I do want to set a marker on class
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 9 of 12

    10
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
cert, and everything else before that, you know, you can fill
in.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Okay.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  So at least we'll be on track.  And I hope
that you begin to engage, perhaps, a mediator -- since I'm sure
this is to be an iterative process, that perhaps you can begin
some early discussions as you begin to get some more
information and get a sense of what a settlement might look
like.
So I won't set a date, per se, other than what I think
I'll do is I'll revisit that.  Right now, I'm just going to
encourage you to have that discussion, but I think at the next
settlement conference, I may to set a date and I want to see --
you know, obviously, we'd love to see you have those meaningful
discussions prior to the class cert process, if the parties are
amenable.  But I'll think about a -- more about that.  And,
perhaps, by then you will have engaged a mediator and we can
talk about what your thoughts are.
So what we should do is, maybe, get back together in
about -- I don't know -- four months from now and see how
things are going, and see how we're progressing.  And in the
meantime, in the next, let's say, two weeks, if you can get to
me a scheduling order that I can sign off on.
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  Will do, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Angie, four months gets us into, actually,
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 10 of 12

    11
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS
December --
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:  Yes, Your Honor.  How about
December 28th at 2:30?
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Well, I'm going to be merciful.  I don't
know if we're all going to be here.  We're usually off during
that period.
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:  The week prior would be December 21st.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Or the week before that.  How's that?
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:  December 14th, that is filling up.  But we
could do -- we could set it December 14th at 2:30.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Okay.  Let's do that.  We'll see you
before the end of the year and see where things are at.
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:
MS. FAHRINGER:  Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Great.
MS. MENALDO:
MS. MENALDO:
MS. MENALDO:
MS. MENALDO:  Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  And I do hope that you will -- and I
expect that you will have at least identified a mediator by
then and we can talk about timing before then.
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:
MR. MURA:  Yes.  Thank you.
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:  Thank you.
--o0o-- 
(Proceedings adjourned at 2:57 p.m.) 
---o0o--- 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 11 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 
         I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript 
from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.  
 
DATE:   Sunday, December 5, 2021 
 
 
 
 
      
      __________________________________________________ 
Ruth Levine Ekhaus, RMR, RDR, FCRR, CSR No. 12219 
 Official Reporter, U.S. District Court  
 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 63     Filed 12/05/21     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.63.0.pdf

Size

232,914 bytes

SHA-256

4c93610945d49aef0db8e8bc63b0afce464d99ac4deb5b90ee280b1f8bf827bd

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.63.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)