`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`In re: Refrigerant Compressors
`Antitrust Litigation
`
`___________________________/
`
`Case No. 2:09-md-02042
`
`Honorable Sean F. Cox
`United States District Court
`
`ORDER REGARDING FIRST
`PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
`
`On March 8, 2010, the Court held a status conference in this matter, at which time the
`
`parties indicated that they have reached agreement as to many portions of the first proposed case
`
`management order for this case but have some areas of disagreement. The parties agreed that the
`
`“Direct and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs shall separately file Master Amended Complaint
`
`including each defendant no later than May 7, 2010.” (Joint Proposed Case Management Order
`
`at 8). Two issues that the parties disagree upon are: 1) whether discovery in this action should
`
`be bifurcated (with class certification discovery to precede merits discovery); and 2) when class
`
`certification discovery should begin. Following the status conference, the Court issued an Order
`
`directing the parties to brief those two issues. (Docket Entry No. 127).
`
`As to when class certification discovery should commence, the Court concludes that no
`
`discovery should commence until after the Court rules on Defendants’ motions seeking to
`
`dismiss Plaintiffs’ master amended complaints. As Defendants note, in In re Travel Agent
`
`Comm’n Antitrust Litig., 583 F.3d 896, 908-09 (6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit stated that
`
`“[p]ursuant to Twombly, district courts must assess the plausibility of an alleged illegal
`
`agreement before parties are forced to engage in protracted litigation and bear excessive
`
`discovery costs.” Id. at 909 (emphasis in original). Defendants should not have to engage in
`
`
`
`2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 143 Filed 04/19/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1580
`
`what will undoubtedly be extensive class discovery prior to this Court determining that Plaintiffs
`
`have a viable claim.
`
`As to the issue of bifurcation, the cases cited by the parties reflect that the decision
`
`whether to bifurcate discovery is a very individualized determination. This Court concludes that
`
`it would be unwise to make a determination as to bifurcation at this early stage of the litigation –
`
`before Plaintiffs have even filed their master amended complaints. Rather, this Court shall
`
`reserve ruling on that issue until after the consolidated complaints have been filed and this Court
`
`has ruled on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. At that stage of the litigation, this Court will be far
`
`more familiar with Plaintiffs’ claims, and the issues that will be most relevant at the certification
`
`stage, and will be in a much better position to make an informed decision.
`
`Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in order to
`
`prepare and submit a proposed case management order that reflects the above rulings.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`S/Sean F. Cox
`Sean F. Cox
`United States District Judge
`
`Dated: April 19, 2010
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
`April 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
`
`S/Jennifer Hernandez
`Case Manager
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
