2001-01-26 Harley-Davidson Response - Minnesota Judicial Branch

of the settlement and missed the deadline for opting out (Lund Depo., pp. 51-53, Unger Aff.,
Exhibit 12.)
Additionally, the arguments of “pattern and practice” were reviewed and rejected by Judge
Carolan. This Court should not, on a much less complete record, disturb the judgment of Judge
Carolan, at least not without the benefit of the norms and procedures of appellate review.
C. Anticipated Length of Trial.
Claimants’ argue that their claims, ranging from $500.00 to $3,083.00, require 1Zday trials
because all 24 plaintiffs will testify about their own claim in each and every case. This is absurd
and completely unsupported on the record. Again, Judge Carolan found this argument to be
without merit. Individually, these claims present no more than a 2-day trial. In effect, they require
the claimant and the salesperson to testify as to what transpired between them, usually in a single
conversation. None of the plaintiffs were involved in the others’ transactions. There is no basis
for one to testify in the trial of another. The plaintiffs’ depositions have lasted between one and
three hours apiece. It is difficult to conceive how their trial testimony could last longer than
discovery depositions. We submit the claimants’ allegations about the length of trial are totally
unfounded and provide no support for consolidation.
Iv. THERE IS NO NEED FOR CONSOLIDATION FOR PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS
Twin Cities Harley-Davidson has nearly completed its discovery. All but one of the
claimants has been deposed.. The final deposition is scheduled for next week. Following these
-
depositions, Twin Cities Harley-Davidson plans to bring appropriate dispositive otions. Because
IL
each motion will be based on the individual testimony of each claimant, there isno reason to
consolidate the dismissal motions. With nearly all of the discovery completed, the claimants have
failed to cite a single example of actual difficulty in discovery management. The mere fact that
12
l -