In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Phased Discovery [# 187] (“Motion”). 1 Defendants propose a Case Management Order that provides for class discovery before class certification and merits discovery. Plaintiffs propose an alternative order that provides for class certification at the conclusion of all fact discovery.
The issue now before this Court is whether bifurcated discovery is appropriate.
I. Background.
Defendants are the four largest Class I railroads based in the United States. Plaintiffs are eighteen…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Michael McCarthy Arthur Waskow v. Richard G. KleindienstCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1990
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Smith v. Washington Post CompanyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATIONDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Blair v. Assurance IQ LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023
- Cardenas v. Resort Sales By Spinnaker IncDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2021
- In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation - Mdl 1869District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.