Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 24STCV03873, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV03873, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03873 Hearing Date: February 25, 2025 Dept: 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Noah Rowles v Fortra LLC and Dustin Snell,

24STCV03873

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

This action has been designated as complex pursuant to CRC 3.400(a), and thus requires exceptional judicial management. All provisions of this CMO are deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of Rule 3.400(a), and to promote effective decision-making by the Court. They are based upon individual consideration of this complex action, including the Status Conference Reports previously filed by the parties.

1. The Parties indicate that they may be open to exploring private mediation after an exchange of informal discovery. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report Re: Mediation Efforts, including the identity of any mediator they have selected and the date of any mediation they have scheduled, no later than September 25, 2025. A Non-Appearance Case Review Re Mediation Efforts is set for October 2, 2025 at 8:30 AM, Department 9. If the parties agree to a voluntary, informal exchange of discovery prior to mediating, the Court encourages (but does not require or order) the parties to include a verification with each production of discovery so that if the mediation is unsuccessful, the parties will not have to duplicate or repeat this exchange of discovery.

2. The Court hereby lifts the stay to permit:

(a) Cross-Defendant Dustin Snell to file and serve a Responsive Pleading to Fortra’s Cross-Complaint Complaint; and

(b) Defendants to file and serve any motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication based only on the issues of (i) statute of limitations and delayed discovery; and (ii) whether Plaintiff Rowles had a legal or equitable interest in Network Automation, Inc. in 2014, including whether Network Automation, Inc. was a continuation of Unisyn Software LLC.

3. Cross-Defendant Snell must file and serve a Responsive Pleading by no later than March 26, 2025. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing and Serving of Cross-Defendant Snell’s Responsive Pleading for April 2, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9.

4. Defendants must file and serve any motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication based only on the issues of (i) statute of limitations and delayed discovery; and (ii) whether Plaintiff Rowles had a legal or equitable interest in Network Automation, Inc. in 2014, including whether Network Automation, Inc. was a continuation of Unisyn Software LLC

by no later than September 25, 2025. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing and Serving of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication for October 2, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9.

5. Before filing any motion, the moving party must contact the Court Staff in Department 9 to obtain a hearing date and a briefing schedule.

6. Phased Discovery. Discovery shall be phased. At this time, the Court hereby lifts the stay to allow discovery only on the following issues: (a) statute of limitations and delayed discovery; (b) whether Plaintiff Rowles had a legal or equitable interest in Network Automation, Inc. in 2014, including whether Network Automation, Inc. was a continuation of Unisyn Software LLC; and (c) production of only the 2014 stock purchase agreement that resulted in Fortra’s acquisition of NAI and any other documents necessary to reflect the final consideration for the acquisition (production of these documents only, not unlimited discovery relating to the acquisition). Fact discovery for these issues in phase 1 must be completed by August 25, 2025. Informal discovery is permitted. If there is a dispute concerning whether a given discovery request is encompassed within these three areas for phase 1, the parties are to set up a telephonic conference with the court pursuant to the instructions herein.

7. At the February 25, 2025 status conference, Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the initial discovery that Plaintiff propounded prior to the Court’s imposition of the stay on discovery. The withdrawal is without prejudice for Plaintiff to re-propound any discovery in accordance with the Court’s phasing order above.

8. Protective Order. Parties are alerted that model protective orders may be found at Los Angeles Superior Court website at http://www.lacourt.org/division/civil/CI0043.aspx. The parties are encouraged to use these model orders as shown, or if modified, as a template for the modified order. A redlined courtesy copy must be posted on the e-service bulletin board and lodged with the court at the time of filing. The parties must use the redlined version to identify any changes proposed to the model order.

9. E-service & E-filing. Electronic service is not the same as electronic filing. The parties have agreed, and the Court has signed an order authorizing Case Anywhere as the e-service to be used in this case. Argument must not be posted on the bulletin board. For information on electronic filing in the Complex Courts, please refer to https://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/efiling2.aspx and http://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/pdf/ComplexefilingFAQs.pdf.

10. Telephonic conferences. The Court handles discovery motions informally, using telephonic conferences and LA CourtConnect. Counsel must post a message via their Electronic Service Provider to request any informal discovery conference or other conference. The Court will either reply to the message or issue a Minute Order setting the conference. The telephonic conference will automatically be taken off calendar if all relevant parties have not scheduled the telephonic conference with LA CourtConnect. Parties must file and serve a 5-page joint brief two days before the conference. Since these conferences are informal, no court reporter or audio recording is permitted.

11. Potential Related Cases. Counsel are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case for any potentially related cases pursuant California Rule of court Rule 3.300, including any PAGA case involving the same representative plaintiff. This is a continuing obligation on both plaintiffs and defendants while this case is pending.

12. Settlement. File a Notice of Settlement on Judicial Council form CM-200, a mandatory form.

a. Consider using the form wage and hour settlement agreements now available on the court’s website at https://www.lacourt.org/forms/all – “Civil Forms” section. With input and unanimous consensus from an Ad Hoc Wage and Hour Committee, the court posted: (1) a form class action settlement agreement, (2) a form class action/PAGA settlement agreement, (3) and a form PAGA settlement agreement. Using these forms should cut down on attorney negotiation time and reduce the lag time between a successful mediation and execution of a long form agreement. Filing a motion that is based on a form agreement and includes a redlined copy identifying modifications will also expedite the court’s review process and help reduce the current backlog on hearings.

b. If settlement includes dismissal of class action claims (such as a PAGA only settlement or an individual settlement), then Plaintiff must comply with CRC 3.769 and 3.770 in order to obtain dismissal of class claims. Do NOT use Judicial Council Form Civ-110, Request for Dismissal.

Plaintiff is ordered to download the instant signed order from the Court’s website, to give formal notice to all other parties, and to file proof of service of such within five (5) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2025

__________________________

ELAINE LU

Judge of the Superior Court