Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Background

The Plaintiffs sought to extend the deadline for filing a letter requesting a pre-motion conference about class certification. The court had set that deadline in an order separate from the broader case-management schedule. Although later case-management orders extended fact and expert discovery deadlines, they did not expressly extend the class-certification letter deadline.

The Plaintiffs stated that they mistakenly assumed the class-certification deadline had been extended as well. They described extensive discovery, including depositions, document production and review, subpoenas, data analysis, and work by expert witnesses. The Plaintiffs filed the requested letter at the same time as their application to extend the deadline. Defendants took no position on the timing.

Legal Standard and Arguments

The Plaintiffs argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) permits a scheduling deadline to be changed for good cause and with the judge’s consent. They relied on their diligence in conducting discovery and on the absence of prejudice to Defendants. They also argued that discovery concerning the merits was needed before class-certification briefing because courts must conduct a rigorous analysis of class-certification requirements.

Ruling

The court stated that the Plaintiffs’ application was untimely under Individual Rule I.B.2 but nonetheless granted it. The court extended the deadline for filing the class-certification pre-motion-conference letter effective as of March 25, 2022. The order did not decide whether a class should be certified or resolve the merits of the underlying case. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 93.