Parties in Samsung MDL Propose May 22 Due Date for Consolidated Complaint

Defendant Samsung and the plaintiffs in the 16 Samsung data breach class actions propose a May 22 deadline for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, said their joint agenda and status report (docket 1:23-md-03055) on the multidistrict litigation, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden.

James Cecchi of Carella Byrne is the plaintiffs’ interim lead counsel in the MDL (see 2302280010). Seven attorneys from Archer & Greiner, Hunton Andrews and Arnold & Porter are representing Samsung, said the document.

Under the proposed schedule, Samsung’s answer to the consolidated amended complaint would be due July 21, said the document. Samsung “expressly reserves the right to seek additional time” to answer the consolidated amended complaint, “depending on the scope of that pleading,” it said. The plaintiffs think “this is unnecessary since the right to seek additional time for good cause already exists under Rule 16,” it said.

The July 21 due date for Samsung’s answer and the deadlines that follow are part of a “compromise schedule” that the plaintiffs have agreed to, said the document. Under the proposed schedule, the plaintiffs’ response to Samsung’s answer would be due Sept. 19, with Samsung’s reply brief due a month later.

Samsung’s position is that it’s “difficult for it to set a deadline” to answer the consolidated amended complaint “without understanding the scope of the pleading,” said the document. Samsung needs to know the number of named plaintiffs, and the “potentially relevant laws” for each of them, it said. It also needs to know the identity of the named plaintiffs to determine “whether their claims are subject to binding individual arbitration,” it said. Until it has this information, Samsung “is unable to predict how much time will be necessary to prepare an appropriate response” to the consolidated amended complaint, it said, but it thinks it will need at least 60 days.

The parties “disagree” about “what, if any, discovery should take place” before U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn, who’s presiding over the MDL, sets a deadline for Samsung’s answer to the consolidated amended complaint, said the document. Samsung’s answer may include a motion to dismiss all claims, plus “potentially motions” to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Federal Arbitration Act, it said.

The plaintiffs believe Samsung in discovery “should produce any documents that have previously been gathered and produced to governmental entities” before the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, said the document. The plaintiffs think discovery should proceed “in due course” after the consolidated amended complaint is filed, it said. Samsung disagrees and thinks discovery “at this stage would be premature,” it said.