Exhibit B — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 114.3)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 114-3 · 2022-10-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT B 
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 114-3     Filed 10/11/22     Page 1 of 6

From:
Fahringer, Susan (SEA)
To:
Andre Mura
Cc:
Thompson, Anna M. (SEA); Amy Zeman; Mark Troutman; Zeke Wald; Menaldo, Nicola C. (SEA); Earl, Erin K.
(SEA); Schottlaender, Hayden (DAL); Marino, Trisha (SEA)
Subject:
RE: Brooks v. Thomson Reuters -- case schedule
Date:
Thursday, October 06, 2022 11:12:00 AM
Hi, Andre. I’m available until noon today – will that work?
 
Susan Fahringer | Perkins Coie LLP
PARTNER
1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
D. +1.206.359.8687
E. SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
 
From: Andre Mura <amm@classlawgroup.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2022 11:06 AM
To: Fahringer, Susan (SEA) <SFahringer@perkinscoie.com>
Cc: Thompson, Anna M. (SEA) <AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com>; Amy Zeman
<amz@classlawgroup.com>; Mark Troutman <mht@classlawgroup.com>; Zeke Wald
<zsw@classlawgroup.com>; Menaldo, Nicola C. (SEA) <NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com>; Earl, Erin K.
(SEA) <EEarl@perkinscoie.com>; Schottlaender, Hayden (DAL) <HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com>;
Marino, Trisha (SEA) <TMarino@perkinscoie.com>
Subject: Re: Brooks v. Thomson Reuters -- case schedule
 
Thanks for your message. Please let me know a good time for us to confer live today. 
 
Thanks,
Andre
Andre M. Mura (he/him) | Partner
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland CA 94607
510.350.9717 | amm@classlawgroup.com
www.classlawgroup.com
 
 
This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited; and you are asked to notify us immediately by return email or telephone at (510)
350-9700. Thank you.
On Oct 6, 2022, at 10:37 AM, Fahringer, Susan (SEA) <SFahringer@perkinscoie.com>
wrote:
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 114-3     Filed 10/11/22     Page 2 of 6


Hi, Andre. Sounds like there are two issues here: (1) you’d like to wait until
December 22 to file the Daubert motion(s) you envision, but you think drafting
the Daubert motion(s) after you file your motion for class cert might somehow
cause your team some inefficiency; and (2) you’d like another extension of the
deadline to move for class certification and to amend the pleadings.
As to (1): Like you, we’d expect Judge Chen to want to consider the Daubert
motions at the same time as the class cert motion. That simply means briefing
on the Daubert motion(s) should be closed by March 9. I don’t understand your
concerns about your team duplicating its efforts, but I suspect that the minor
waste that might entail can be easily avoided, and would pale in comparison to
the waste that will be generated from a third extension of the case deadlines.
So, it would be fine with us if you filed your Daubert Motion(s) on December 22
– in fact, January 16 would be fine. We would be happy to meet and confer to
discuss briefing schedules that will allow briefing to close by 3/9, but one
sensible option is:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion(s): 1/16/23
2. TR Response: 2/13 (4 weeks later).
3. Plaintiffs’ Reply: 2/27 (2 weeks later).
4. TR motion(s) (if any): 1/26.
5. Plaintiffs’ Response: 2/23 (4 weeks later)
6. TR Reply: 3/9 (2 weeks later).  
As to (2), there is no reason to tie the other case deadlines to the Daubert
motions. We agreed to your February 2022 request for an extension of the
case schedule. We agreed again when you asked to extend the case schedule
a second time, in March 2022. The current schedule – now twice extended, at
plaintiffs’ request – has allowed ample time for your team to draft Plaintiffs’
motion for class cert and to decide whether you want to seek to amend the
complaint. Additional delay would be costly and inefficient, and is unnecessary.
I’m afraid that this time, we cannot accommodate your request.
As always, happy to confer on this live.
Thanks,
Susan
 
Susan Fahringer | Perkins Coie LLP
PARTNER
1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
D. +1.206.359.8687
E. SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
 
From: Andre Mura <amm@classlawgroup.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 6:05 PM
To: Fahringer, Susan (SEA) <SFahringer@perkinscoie.com>; Thompson, Anna M. (SEA)
<AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com>; Amy Zeman <amz@classlawgroup.com>; Mark
Troutman <mht@classlawgroup.com>; Zeke Wald <zsw@classlawgroup.com>
Cc: Menaldo, Nicola C. (SEA) <NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com>; Earl, Erin K. (SEA)
<EEarl@perkinscoie.com>; Schottlaender, Hayden (DAL)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 114-3     Filed 10/11/22     Page 3 of 6

<HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com>; Marino, Trisha (SEA)
<TMarino@perkinscoie.com>
Subject: Re: Brooks v. Thomson Reuters -- case schedule
 
Hi Susan,
 
Happy to explain.
 
Our proposed schedule attempts to balance the needs of counsel, the demands of this case,
and courts’ preferences in handling Daubert and class certification motions together. Because
courts consider Daubert challenges before they reach the class cert motions, we’ve seen that
courts prefer Daubert motions and class cert briefs to be handled simultaneously and often
schedule them to that effect. See Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC, 281 F.R.D. 534,
541–42 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (explaining that courts must consider Daubert challenges prior to
resolving the merits of class cert); see also Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 324 F. Supp. 3d
1084, 1092, 1106-10 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (receiving class cert opposition and Daubert motion at
the same time and considering simultaneously); Johnson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 3:17-cv-
00517-WHO, 2022 WL 2869528, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2022) (extending class cert
and Daubert deadlines together, then ruling on class cert and Daubert motions in one order).
 
The proposed schedule reflects that preference, and meets a few of our addition concerns.
First, we will necessarily have to consider the opinions of Professor Kivetz, Professor
Bambauer, and Mr. Kidder alongside our experts’ opinions as we write our class cert brief.
Waiting to prepare the Daubert motion is likely to cause duplicative effort because of the
relationship between our experts and yours. Second, the time between the close of expert
discovery and the present deadline for our class cert brief is under a month. Your experts’
reports are lengthy and include many citations—it will be time consuming and effort
intensive to adequately consider and prepare any Daubert challenges Plaintiffs may want to
bring, as well as to prepare an opening class cert brief. Third, both I and Jenn Bennett (who
are leading the briefing) have a number of significant deadlines coming up in the next 45
days: the response brief in an appeal on which I am lead is due 11/18; the In re 3M cases have
resumed after a pause, and choice of law, Daubert, and summary judgment briefs will be due
in several of our cases; and Jenn has multiple, significant briefing deadlines and oral
arguments that have been scheduled for October and November. 
 
As for the complaint amendment deadline, that has always been tied to the class cert motion
deadline, and the proposal simply keeps that the same.
 
Thanks,
Andre
 
 
Andre M. Mura (he/him) | Partner
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland CA 94607
510.350.9717 | amm@classlawgroup.com
www.classlawgroup.com
 
 
This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 114-3     Filed 10/11/22     Page 4 of 6

strictly prohibited; and you are asked to notify us immediately by return email or telephone at (510)
350-9700. Thank you.
 
 
From: Fahringer, Susan (SEA) <SFahringer@perkinscoie.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 2:15 PM
To: Andre Mura <amm@classlawgroup.com>, Thompson, Anna M. (SEA)
<AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com>, Amy Zeman <amz@classlawgroup.com>,
Mark Troutman <mht@classlawgroup.com>, Zeke Wald
<zsw@classlawgroup.com>
Cc: Menaldo, Nicola C. (SEA) <NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com>, Earl, Erin K. (SEA)
<EEarl@perkinscoie.com>, Schottlaender, Hayden (DAL)
<HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com>, Marino, Trisha (SEA)
<TMarino@perkinscoie.com>
Subject: RE: Brooks v. Thomson Reuters -- case schedule
Hi, Andre. We’ll consider your proposal. As we do that, can you explain why
you believe that you need to wait to file plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
(or to amend the complaint) until you’re ready to file a Daubert (or similar)
motion? And can you point us to any other case you’re aware of where the
court set a schedule similar to what you’re proposing now?
Thanks,
Susan
 
Susan Fahringer | Perkins Coie LLP
PARTNER
1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
D. +1.206.359.8687
E. SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
 
From: Andre Mura <amm@classlawgroup.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2022 5:23 PM
To: Thompson, Anna M. (SEA) <AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com>; Amy Zeman
<amz@classlawgroup.com>; Mark Troutman <mht@classlawgroup.com>; Zeke Wald
<zsw@classlawgroup.com>
Cc: Fahringer, Susan (SEA) <SFahringer@perkinscoie.com>; Menaldo, Nicola C. (SEA)
<NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com>; Earl, Erin K. (SEA) <EEarl@perkinscoie.com>;
Schottlaender, Hayden (DAL) <HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com>; Marino, Trisha (SEA)
<TMarino@perkinscoie.com>
Subject: Brooks v. Thomson Reuters -- case schedule
 
Hi Susan,
 
We write regarding the case schedule. We propose adjusting the case schedule to set briefing
deadlines for Daubert motions to coincide with class cert briefing, and to reset the deadlines
so that the parties have sufficient time to prepare all these filings. Please let us know by noon
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 114-3     Filed 10/11/22     Page 5 of 6

on Thursday, Oct 6 whether you have edits or would stipulate to such a schedule. In the
meantime, we’re available to discuss by video if that would be helpful. If we cannot reach
some agreement, we intend to move the Court for the relief reflected in the proposal.
 
Regards,
 
 
Andre M. Mura (he/him) | Partner
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland CA 94607
510.350.9717 | amm@classlawgroup.com
www.classlawgroup.com
 
 
This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited; and you are asked to notify us immediately by return email or telephone at (510)
350-9700. Thank you.
 
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents. Thank you.
 
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error,
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 114-3     Filed 10/11/22     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.114.3.pdf

Size

377,956 bytes

SHA-256

81e59fce7f966126b9128462de64d1c74dc26fa201ac410ac4d25dce45fb5114

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.114.3.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)