Administrative Motion to continue Case Management Conference — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 54, N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-03056)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 54 · 2020-07-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
HERRERA PURDY LLP  
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerapurdy.com 
Andrew M. Purdy (SBN 261912) 
apurdy@herrerapurdy.com 
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerapurdy.com 
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Tel: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
HERRERA PURDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerapurdy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerapurdy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94108 
Tel: (510) 422-4700 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
Fax: (415) 956-1008 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Warren T. Burns (Pro Hac Vice) 
wburns@burnscharest.com 
Russell Herman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rherman@burnscharest.com 
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 
Dallas, TX 75202 
Tel: (469) 904-4550 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Christopher J. Cormier  
(Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes 
[Additional counsel on signature page] 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
JAMES COTTLE and FREDERICK 
SCHOENEMAN, on behalf of themselves and 
all others similarly situated, 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
 
v. 
 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
Case No.: 4:20-cv-03056-DMR
 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE 
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 1 of 7

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
-1- 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
INTRODUCTION 
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, plaintiffs James Cottle and Frederick Schoeneman 
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) respectfully request that the Court continue the Initial Case 
Management Conference (“Initial CMC”) currently set for August 5, 2020 to the first available 
date no less than 21 days after Plaintiffs file their proposed Consolidated Complaint, or a 
Consolidated Complaint consistent with any further order of the Court.  Holding the CMC at that 
later date will allow the Court to move the case forward most efficiently, including addressing 
scheduling and discovery-related issues with the involvement of all parties and counsel in this 
action, rather than holding the Initial CMC with solely the involvement of parties in the first-filed 
Cottle action. 
BACKGROUND 
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 4, 2020.  Dkt. 1.  On May 5, 2020, the Court 
scheduled the Initial CMC for August 5, 2020.  Dkts. 1, 10.  Between June 25, 2020 and July 17, 
2020, four additional putative class actions making substantially the same allegations and 
bringing substantially the same claims against Plaid were filed in this District.  See Mitchell v. 
Plaid Inc., 3:20-cv-04230-SK, Curtis, et al. v. Plaid Inc., 4:20-cv-04344-DMR, Anderson, et al. v 
Plaid Inc., 3:20-cv-04480-JSC, and Evans, et al. v. Plaid Inc., 3:20-cv-04804-JSC.  Unopposed 
motions to relate those actions to the first-filed Cottle action were filed on June 26, 2020, July 8, 
2020, July 17, 2020, and July 22, 2020, respectively.  Dkts. 37, 42, 49, and 52.  Those motions 
are currently pending. 
On July 17, 2020, all parties in the Anderson, Cottle, Curtis, and Mitchell actions jointly 
filed a stipulation requesting that the Court consolidate those four actions under Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 42(a), and to appoint interim class counsel (the “Stipulation”).  Dkt. No. 51.  On 
July 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs in the Evans action, which was filed on the same day as the 
Stipulation, filed a notice of joinder in the Stipulation.  Evans Dkt.16.  The plaintiffs in all actions 
have filed consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.  Dkts. 15, 34; Mitchell Dkts. 9, 14; Curtis 
Dkts. 16-17; Anderson Dkts. 11, 13; Evans Dkts. 9-10.  An order on the Stipulation is currently 
pending.  Plaid’s deadline to respond to the Cottle complaint was July 22, 2020 (Dkt. 36), but 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 2 of 7

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
Plaid did not file a response, apparently in light of the pending Stipulation.  If it is granted, 
Plaintiffs will file a Consolidated Complaint within one week of the Court’s order granting the 
Stipulation. Dkt. 51.   
ARGUMENT 
The requested short continuance of the Initial CMC would maximize efficiency for the 
parties and the Court.  If the Stipulation is approved, the Consolidated Complaint would replace 
the Cottle complaint as the operative complaint in this action and additional parties would be 
brought before this Court.  It would be inefficient for the Court to hold a CMC while there is 
uncertainty as to whether additional plaintiffs will be consolidated in this action.  
Plaid will not be prejudiced by the requested continuance: a CMC will not be required to 
resolve the Stipulation, which is unopposed by all parties, nor for plaintiffs to draft and file their 
Consolidated Complaint, if the Court approves the same.  Plaintiffs asked Plaid to stipulate to 
Plaintiffs’ continuance request and Plaid declined on the basis that it would only agree to a 
continuance until a date after the Court ruled on a motion to dismiss. Declaration of Shawn M. 
Kennedy ISO Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion, ¶ 3.   
Plaintiffs could not agree to Plaid’s counterproposal because it would effectively bypass 
Federal Rules 1, 16, and 26, preclude input from the Court on the scope of and timing discovery, 
and unnecessarily delay engagement on critical pretrial matters such as the protective order and 
protocol for exchanging electronically stored information, Initial Disclosures, and other 
discovery, creating significant delays later on as those matters will still need to be resolved.  It 
would also prevent the Court from exercising meaningful oversight of this litigation from the 
outset as intended by the Federal Rules, which identify five purposes for a pretrial conference:   
 
(1) expediting disposition of the action; 
(2)  establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted 
because of lack of management; 
(3)  discouraging wasteful pretrial activities; 
(4)  improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation; and 
(5)  facilitating settlement. 
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(a).  The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 16 also emphasize the value of 
early Court involvement: “Empirical studies reveal that when a trial judge intervenes personally 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 3 of 7

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
at an early stage to assume judicial control. . . the case is disposed of by settlement or trial more 
efficiently and with less cost and delay than when the parties are left to their own devices.” Id., 
advisory committee note (1983). 
Because an Initial CMC is an important mechanism for the parties to share their respective 
views on the appropriate scope of pretrial discovery and to obtain needed input from the Court on 
formulating and simplifying the issues, it is standard practice in the Northern District of 
California to hold the Initial CMC before the pleadings are resolved.  Plaid’s position that any 
discussion of discovery or other case management issues should be deferred until an unspecified 
date months or potentially years in the future risks creating inefficiencies by excluding the Court 
from case management altogether for a protracted period. 
In addition, Plaid’s proposal to delay indefinitely the Initial CMC—in essence, putting 
this case on hold—would significantly prejudice Plaintiffs.  Without commencement of civil 
discovery, Plaid may modify its practices and software without any oversight over the effects on 
putative class members. Additionally, over time memories fade and evidence is lost; in the 
absence of the collaborative meet and confer process that the Federal Rules envision, relevant 
evidence of Plaid’s conduct may not be preserved. 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order continuing the 
Initial CMC currently set for August 5, 2020 to the first available date no less than 21 days after 
Plaintiffs file their proposed Consolidated Complaint, or a Consolidated Complaint consistent 
with any further order of the Court. 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 4 of 7

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
Dated:  July 27, 2020 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Rachel Geman 
 
 
Rachel Geman 
 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Madeline M. Gomez (Pro Hac Vice) 
mgomez@lchb.com 
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 
Nashville, TN 37201 
Tel: (615) 313-9000 
Fax: (212) 313-9965 
 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
Fax: (415) 956-1008 
 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Madeline M. Gomez (Pro Hac Vice) 
mgomez@lchb.com 
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 
Nashville, TN 37201 
Tel: (615) 313-9000 
Fax: (212) 313-9965 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 5 of 7

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
Dated:  July 27, 2020 
HERRERA PURDY LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Shawn Kennedy 
 
 
 
Shawn M. Kennedy 
 
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerapurdy.com 
Andrew M. Purdy (SBN 261912) 
apurdy@herrerapurdy.com 
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerapurdy.com 
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Tel: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
 
HERRERA PURDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerapurdy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerapurdy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, California 94612 
Telephone: (510) 422-4700 
Fax:  (855) 969-2050 
 
Dated:  July 27, 2020 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Christopher Cormier  
 
 
Christopher J. Cormier 
 
Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 6 of 7

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 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Warren T. Burns (Pro Hac Vice) 
wburns@burnscharest.com 
Russell Herman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rherman@burnscharest.com 
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 
Dallas, TX 75202 
Tel: (469) 904-4550 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
C. Jacob Gower (Pro Hac Vice) 
jgower@burnscharest.com 
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 
New Orleans LA 70130 
Tel: (504) 799-2845 
Fax: (504) 881-1765 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 54     Filed 07/27/20     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.54.0.pdf

Size

40,494 bytes

SHA-256

a3fd3ecd1670d6c80f9fc95b9f2e765c95a93871ef40250d2c0d8f6567d53a83

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.54.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)