Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

... . . /`~ - · f‘\
1 Andrea E. Watters, Esq. _ ”`‘``t‘ ` r`‘‘‘’ or ~ A A ,__
WATTERS & WATTERS, P. C. ____ T REC ._ LO ( V.
2 2807 East Broadway Boulevard " _ EIVED _ CU
Tucson, Arizona 85716 ’ . '
3 Telephone: (520) 323-5910 ‘
smc Bar NO.; 015583 FEB 2 7 zuu.9
4 2 1
Att e f rPlaintiff I CLERK U.S. DI BA i
5 °m Y ° { DISTRICT Oi:T,'Z‘\f§QO°NQ,_U*1T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT A DEQ, ,7 s
6 *—————¢.i...i.. 1
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
RUBEN H. MONTAN O, individually and on ) Case No.: CIV 02-609 TUC WDB
8 behalf of all others similarly situated, )
) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
9 Plaintiff 1
)
10 vs. )
11 )
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an )
12 Illinois Corporation; ALLSTATE PROPERTY)
AND CASUALTY INSURANCE )
13 COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation; )
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, an )
14 Illinois Corporation, )
)
15 Defendants. )
16 Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated January 21, 2003, and the parties’ Rule 26(
17 meeting, the parties submit the following Proposed Case Management Plan.
18
*9 1. NATURE on THE cAsE
20 A. Plaintiff’s Claims:
21
For his statement of the nature of the case, Plaintiff quotes his Complaint:
22
1. This is a class and collective action brought on behalf of all persons who, at any tim
23
from December 17, 1999, up to and including the date of entry of judgment after trial
24
are or were employed by defendants, or their controlled affiliates or subsidiaries a
25 salaried claims representatives anywhere in the State of Arizona. These employee
1
case 2:03-md-01541-PGR D¤c1h“11%‘3,*‘H1’1·2*é*?z?TAT‘i=11e¤ O2/21/2006 Page 1 013

. · . - fen., e }
I 12. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY
2 The parties proposed focusing on class discovery first, recognizing that such discovery wil
3 involve some discovery on the merits, and then tuming to discovery on the merits.
4 13. PROPOSED SCHEDULING DEADLINES
5 A. See Section l0 regarding initial disclosures.
6 B. There should not be a need to amend the complaint or join parties, subject t
Q addition of plaintiffs if this case proceeds as a collective action.
9 C. All discovery should be completed by January 30, 2004.
10 D. Dispositive motions shall be filed 30 days alter the close of discovery.
11 E. Disclosure of damages experts shall be made 30 days following the Court’s rulin
12 on any dispositive motions. Disclosure of any other experts shall be made 60 days before the clos
13 of discovery, with disclosure of any rebuttal experts 30 days before the close of discovery.
14 F. Witness lists shall be submitted 30 days prior to trial.
15 G. Settlement status reports shall be provided to the court at the end of every calend
16 quarter beginning June 30, 2003.
17 H. The pre-trial statement shall be filed 30 days prior to trial.
18 14. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS
19 The parties do not currently anticipate evidentiary hearings such as hearings.
Z 15. DATE CASE WILL BE READY FOR TRIAL
22 The case will be ready for trial June l, 2004. The length of trial is presently unclear give
23 the proposed collective action.
24 A jury trial has been requested. While defendants do not contest the request for a jury trial
25 there may be disputes as to what issues are properly submitted to the jury. See Section l, above.
16
case 2:03-me-01541-Poe Docl\.iIHi‘E‘fi‘l"t20I¤4TAT1i|:i|ed 02/21/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 16. PROSPECTS FOR SETTLEMENT
2 Settlement cannot occur while the case remains pending as a collective action.
3 17. PROPOSED DATES FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS
4 Plaintiff believes Defendants are in sole possession of the identities and contact informatio
5
for the members of the class and Plaintiffs’ ability to offer certain dates for class certificatio
6
proceedings is limited accordingly. Plaintiff anticipates that class certification proceedings may g
7
forward within 90 days of receipt of all relevant discovery materials from Defendant, with tha
8
9 consideration, Plaintiff anticipates that motions for class certification may be filed by September 30
10 2003 and that discovery on this issue may be completed by August 29, 2003. Defendant believes —
H that Plaintiffs ability to bring a motion for class certification is not constrained at all •<
12 believes that the August 29, and September 30, 2003 dates are reasonable.
13 18. PLACEMENT ON COMPLEX TRACK
14 This case should be placed on the complex track given its nature as a collective action.
15 19. SUGGESTIONS TO EXPEDITE DISPOSITION OF MATTER
16 Not applicable.
17 DATED February 27, 2003.
18
SQUIRE, S= DERS & DEMPSEK L.L.P. WAITERS J "WATTER51 P. C.
19 1 _ _,.- A ,
A - __? _ 7 7 I {hk
I heryl A. ·1 pp, q. // Andrea }w· ·’
22 Attomey for Defendants L/ Attome for Plaintiff
23 ORIGINAL and ONE COPY iiled February 27, 2003 with:
24 Clerk of the Court ,
United States District Court
25 District of Arizona ·
17 U
Montano v. ALLSTATE
Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR Document 126-4 Filed O2/21/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR

Document 126-4

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR

Document 126-4

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-md-01541-PGR

Document 126-4

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 3 of 3