Ronald L. Porter v. Donald C. Winters

Filing 146

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/15/2011. Supplemental Discovery due by 1/31/2012; Non-Dispositive Motions filed by 5/11/2012; Dispositive Motions filed by 8/3/2012; Pretrial Conference set for 9/28/2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Jury Trial set for 11/6/2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD L. PORTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

RAY MABUS, Secretary of the
Navy,

15
Defendant.
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-00825-AWI-SMS
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
Supplemental Discovery Deadline:
1/31/12
Non-Dispositive Motion
Filing Deadline: 5/11/12
Dispositive Motion
Filing Deadline: 8/3/12

17
18

Pre-Trial Conference Date:
9/28/12, 8:30am, Ctrm. 2/AWI

19

Trial Date: 11/6/12, 8:30am,
Ctrm. 2/AWI (8-10 days)

20
21

1.

22

October 21, 2011.

23

2.

24
25

Date of Scheduling Conference:

Appearances of Counsel:
Elaine W. Wallace, Esq., appeared telephonically on

behalf of plaintiff.

26

Assistant United States Attorney J. Earlene Gordon

27

appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant.

28

//
1

1

3.

2

The Pleadings:
A.

3

Summary of the Pleadings.
The present action arises out of an employment

4

dispute between plaintiff and defendant while working at

5

defendant’s facility in China Lake, CA.

6

reprisal, age discrimination, and hostile environment claims rooted

7

in both Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

8

(“ADEA”), on June 7, 2007 (Doc. 1).

9

discriminated against him on the basis of his age and/or retaliated

10

against him for prior EEO activity, and that he was subjected to a

11

hostile work environment.

12

Plaintiff alleges

Plaintiff claims defendant

Specifically, plaintiff alleges the following

13

discriminatory and/or retaliatory acts (Nos. 1-8 are alleged to be

14

related to plaintiff’s administrative claim, DON 00-60530-003.

15

Nos. 9-13 are said to be related to plaintiff’s administrative

16

claim, DON 01-60530-011):

17

1.

Separating plaintiff from employment on or

18

about November 19, 1999, pursuant to a Reduction in Force (“RIF”)

19

without registering plaintiff to obtain all benefits under the RPL,

20

PL, and/or PPP prior to the effective date of the 1999 RIF.

21

2.

Giving plaintiff only a level 3 [fully

22

successful] performance evaluation for the period ending on July

23

31, 1999, and failure to follow rules regarding bonuses.

24

3.

Denying plaintiff’s request for reconsideration

25

of his separation through RIF on or about April 26, 2000.

26

///

27

//

28

/
2

1

4.

Being repeatedly denied higher performance

2

ratings or the opportunity to receive such ratings, as well as

3

being denied the opportunity to obtain numerous other positions at

4

China Lake, from 1996 through 1999.

5
6

5.

Unfairly administering its 1999 RIF with

respect to plaintiff’s retention rights.

7

6.

Creating a continual hostile environment based

8

on his prior protected activities by, among other things, harassing

9

him by way of denying higher performance ratings and not selecting

10

him to certain employment positions prior to and after the 1999

11

RIF.

12
13

7.

Unfairly designating plaintiff’s position for

abolishment for the 1999 RIF.

14

8.

Unfairly implementing the Demonstration

15

Project’s procedures to discriminate and/or retaliate against

16

plaintiff.

17

9.

Not properly registering him in the Priority

18

Placement Program (“PPP”) and/or Re-employment List (“RPL”)

19

maintained by its Human Resources Services Center on or about

20

October 24, 2000, as well as failing to comply with its PPP, the

21

Repromotion Priority List (“RP”), nor its Merit Promotion Policy,

22

or other employee protections, after the 1996 RIF which impacted

23

his standing in the 1999 RIF, and not properly registering him in

24

the PPP and/or RPL maintained by its Human Resources Services

25

Center, as well as failing to comply with its PPP, the Repromotion

26

Priority List (“RP”), nor its Merit Promotion Policy, or other

27

employee protections through and including the 1999 RIF.

28

//
3

1

10.

Not following its RP, PPP, and/or RPL by

2

placing plaintiff into a non-existent position, and failed to

3

follow Navy policy regarding filling vacant jobs by failing to

4

offer him a position at China Lake subsequent to the 1999 RIF, as

5

well as failing to inform him of open positions, inform him of

6

positions being filled, or assist him in qualifying for such

7

positions through RP, PPP, or RPL.

8

11.

9

Failing to follow appropriate laws, rules,

policies, and guidances regarding the RPL, RP, and PPP when

10

conducting its RIF by, among other things, failing to provide

11

plaintiff the opportunity to obtain outstanding performance

12

reviews, assigning Navy employees to perform the RIF Review that

13

had previously handled prior administrative complaints raised by

14

plaintiff, and failing to properly follow its own performance

15

review procedures.

16

12.

Filling any position after the 1999 RIF for

17

which plaintiff was qualified, using Naval EEO employees to make

18

such decisions who had previously worked on previous administrative

19

complaints filed by plaintiff, and not clearly addressing plaintiff

20

not being offered this position in a subsequent administrative

21

report of investigation.

22
23

13.

Engaging in actions which deny plaintiff

employment at China Lake up to the present.

24

Plaintiff’s Contentions

25

Plaintiff’s complaint and the court decisions best

26

define the issues.

27

outstanding discovery disputes.

28

//

Defendant’s defenses are part of the subject of

4

1

Defendant’s Contentions

2

Defendant denies each of plaintiff’s above claims,

3

and asserts that his claims cannot be considered because the Court

4

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, are time-barred, or are

5

duplicative of claims asserted in other actions.

6

B.

7
8

No amendments are proposed at this time.
4.

9
10

Factual Summary:
A.

(1)

(2)

(3)

Plaintiff was initially given a level three (fully

successful) performance evaluation for the period ending July 31, 1999.

17
18

Plaintiff was separated from employment as a

result of the 1999 RIF, effective November 19, 1999.

15
16

Plaintiff worked at defendant’s China Lake

facility as a civilian employee until November of 1999.

13
14

Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without

further proceedings.

11
12

Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.

(4)

Defendant denied plaintiff’s request for

reconsideration of his separation from employment through the RIF.

19

B.

20

Plaintiff’s Position.
Plaintiff’s RIF reconsideration was performed/

21

conducted by an agency representative (Gregory Morrow) who worked

22

for Human Resources (the organizational party that setup and

23

conducted the RIF mechanics and had oversight of its operation) and

24

who also had previously been the EEO Manager overseeing and

25

participating in plaintiff’s EEO complaints.

26

intimately involved in the performance evaluation, PPP, PRL, and RP

27

programs that affected plaintiff’s employment and/or non employment

28

status.
5

This same office was

1

C.

2

Contested Facts.
(1)

3

5.

4

All other facts.

Legal Issues:
A.

5

Uncontested.
(1)

Ray Mabus is automatically substituted in for

6

Donald C. Winters under FRCP 25(d) as the successor Secretary of

7

Navy, the proper defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16(c).

8

(2)

9

B.

10
11

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

The extent defendant is liable pursuant to

plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims.
(6)

The extent defendant is liable with respect to

any of plaintiff’s claims.

22
23

The extent defendant is liable pursuant to

plaintiff’s retaliation claims.

20
21

The extent defendant is liable pursuant to

plaintiff’s age discrimination claims.

18
19

The extent this Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of plaintiff’s claims.

16
17

All legal issues identified in plaintiff’s

complaint.

14
15

Contested.
(1)

12
13

Venue.

(7)

The extent plaintiff has suffered damages as

alleged in his complaint.

24

6.

25

Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction:
This case will not be assigned for all purposes,

26

including trial, to the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States

27

Magistrate Judge, as the parties do not so consent.

28

//
6

1

7.

2

Pre-Trial Motion Schedule:
All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

3

discovery motions, shall be filed on or before May 11, 2012, and

4

are customarily be heard on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom

5

No. 1 on the Eighth Floor before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder,

6

United States Magistrate Judge.

7

Snyder’s chambers that a hearing date first be cleared with

8

chambers staff at [phone] prior to the filing of any non-

9

dispositive motions and supporting documents.

NOTE: It is the policy of Judge

Judge Snyder’s

10

chambers also requires prompt courtesy copies in excess of 25/50

11

pages in compliance with Local Rule 133(f).

12

comply with Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or

13

the motion will be denied without prejudice and dropped from

14

calendar.1

15

Counsel must also

In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may

16

grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local

17

Rule 144.

18

time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251.

19

However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening

Counsel may appear, and argue non-dispositive motions,

20

telephonically, provided a (written) request to so appear is

21

presented to Magistrate Judge Snyder’s chambers staff (559-499-

22

5692) no later than five (5) court days prior to the noticed

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Local Rule 251(a) ~ revised 12/1/09 ~ requires a joint statem ent re discovery disagreem ent be filed
seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date (i.e., the W ednesday before the custom ary W ednesday
hearing). Any m otion(s) will be dropped from calendar IF the statem ent is not filed OR tim ely filed AND
courtesy copies of any and all m otions, including the 251 stipulation, declarations, and exhibits, properly
tabbed, fastened, and clearly identified as a “Courtesy Copy (to avoid inadvertent, duplicative, and/or
erroneous filing by court staff), exceeding twenty-five (25) pages pursuant to Local Rule 133(f), are not
delivered to the Clerk’s Office at 9:00 a.m . on the fourth (4 th) FULL day (or Thursday) prior to the (custom ary)
hearing (on W ednesday).

7

1

hearing date.

2

appear telephonically via a single conference call to chambers.

3

two or more attorneys request to appear telephonically, then it

4

shall be the obligation and responsibility of the moving party(ies)

5

to make prior arrangements for the single conference call with an

6

AT&T operator, IF counsel do not have conference call capabilities

7

on their telephone systems, and to initiate the call to the court.

8
9

ALL Out-of-town counsel are strongly encouraged to
If

Regarding discovery disputes, no written discovery
motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned

10

Magistrate Judge.

11

confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve by

12

agreement the issues in dispute.

13

unsuccessful, the moving party shall then seek a prompt hearing

14

with the assigned Magistrate Judge by telephone or in person.

15

the hearing is to be conducted by telephone, the Courtroom Deputy

16

Clerk will inform counsel of the date and time of the hearing, and

17

it shall be the responsibility of the moving party to initiate the

18

telephonic conference call to chambers.

19

telephonic hearings or conferences with the Court is prohibited,

20

except with prior permission of the Court.

21

hearing with a judicial officer carries with it a professional

22

representation by the attorney that a conference has taken place

23

and that s/he has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

A party with a discovery dispute must first

If that good faith effort is

If

The recording of

The request for a

24

The attorneys or unrepresented parties shall supply the

25

assigned Magistrate Judge with the particular discovery materials

26

(i.e., objectionable answers to interrogatories) that are needed to

27

understand the dispute.

28

//
8

1

If the assigned Magistrate Judge decides that motion

2

papers and supporting memoranda are needed to satisfactorily

3

resolve the discovery dispute, such papers shall be filed in

4

conformity with Rule 7.

5

interrogatory, question at deposition, request for admission, or

6

request for production to which the motion is addressed, or

7

otherwise identify specifically and succinctly the discovery to

8

which objection is taken or from which a protective order is

9

sought; and, (2) the response or objection and grounds therefor, if

10
11

Such motions shall (1) quote in full each

any, as stated by the opposing party.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the complete

12

transcripts or discovery papers need not be filed with the Court

13

pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule unless the motion cannot be

14

fairly decided without reference to the complete original.

15

All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed on or

16

before August 3, 2012, and are heard on Mondays at 1:30 p.m. in

17

Courtroom No. 2 on the Eighth Floor before the Honorable Anthony W.

18

Ishii, United States District Judge.

19

counsel shall comply with Local Rules 230 and 260.

In scheduling such motions,

20

Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

21

Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion

22

for summary adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in

23

person or by telephone, and confer to discuss the issues to be

24

raised in the motion.

25

The purpose of the meeting shall be to: (1) avoid filing

26

motions for summary judgment where a question of fact exists; (2)

27

determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit

28

in whole or in part; (3) discuss whether issues can be resolved
9

1

without the necessity of briefing; (4) narrow the issues for review

2

by the Court; (5) explore the possibility of settlement before the

3

parties incur the expense of briefing a summary judgment motion;

4

(6) arrive at a joint statement of undisputed facts.

5

The moving party shall initiate the meeting and provide a

6

draft of the joint statement of undisputed facts.

7

the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file a

8

joint statement of undisputed facts.

9

In addition to

In the notice of motion, the moving party shall certify

10

that the parties have met and conferred as ordered above or set

11

forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer.

12

8.

13

Pre-Trial Conference Date:
September 28, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 on the

14

Eighth Floor before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States

15

District Judge.

16

Ten (10) days prior to the Pretrial Conference, the

17

parties shall exchange the disclosures required pursuant to

18

F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3).

19

The parties are ordered to file a JOINT Pretrial

20

Statement pursuant to Local Rule 16-281(a)(2).

21

further ordered to submit a digital copy of their Joint Pretrial

22

Statement in WordPerfect X32 format to Judge Ishii’s chambers by

23

e-mail to [e-mail].

24

The parties are

Counsels' attention is directed to Rules 16-281 and 16-

25

282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

26

California as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the

27
2

28

If W ordPerfect X3 is not available to the parties, then the latest version of W ordPerfect, or any other
word processing program in general use for IBM com patible personal com puters, is acceptable.

10

1

Pre-Trial Conference.

2

with those Rules.

3

9.

The Court will insist upon strict compliance

Trial Date:

4

November 6, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 on the

5

Eighth Floor before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States

6

District Judge.

7

A.

Plaintiff has requested a jury trial.

Defendant

8

contends that some of the relief requested is equitable in nature,

9

and must be decided by the Court.

10

B.

11

8-10 days.

12
13
14
15

C.

Counsels' attention is directed to Rule 16-285 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.
10.

Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,

or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:

16
17

Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time:

Not applicable at this time.
11.

18

Related Matters Pending:
On or about June 16, 2007, plaintiff filed its Notice of

19

Related Cases in this action (Doc. 6), wherein it identified the

20

following cases as being possibly related to this action:

21

Porter v. England, Secretary of the Navy
1:03-cv-06291-AWI-SMS

22
Porter v. Winters, Secretary of the Navy
1:06-cv-00880-LJO-SMS

23
24
25

12.

Compliance with Federal Procedure:
The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of

26

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

27

District of California.

28

administration of this case, all counsel are expected to

To aid the Court in the efficient

11

1

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

2

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

3

California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

4

Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to

5

efficiently handle its increasing caseload.

6

imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the

7

Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.

8
9

13.

The

Sanctions will be

Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:
On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

10

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

11

management/filing district (CM/ECF).

12

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

13

as of January 3, 2005, in all actions pending before the court.

14

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

15

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

16

official court record in all cases will be electronic.

17

are required to file electronically in pro se cases.

18

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

19

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

20

the Court’s Local Rules, the CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the

21

CM/ECF User’s Manual.

22

Unless excused by the Court,

Attorneys
More

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

23

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

24

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

25

an improper format.

26

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

27

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

28

these electronic filing procedures.

An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

12

See L.R. 110, L.R. 133(d)(3).

1

All counsel must be registered for CM/ECF.

On-line

2

registration is available at www.caed.uscourts.gov.

3

registered, counsel will receive a login and password in

4

approximately one (1) week.

5

documents on-line.

6

knowing the rules governing electronic filing in the Eastern

7

District.

8

Court’s web site.

9
10

14.

Once

Counsel must be registered to file

See L.R. 135(g).

Counsel are responsible for

Please review the Court’s Local Rules available on the

Effect of this Order:
The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the

11

Court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case

12

to resolution.

The trial date reserved is specifically reserved

13

for this case.

If the parties determine at any time that the

14

schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are ORDERED

15

to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made,

16

either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

17

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein

18

will not be considered unless accompanied by affidavits or

19

declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which

20

establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

21

Scheduling orders are vital to the Court’s case

22

management.

23

Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986), and are

24

intended to alleviate case management problems.

25

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).

26

conference order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,

27

which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.”

28

F.2d at 610.

Scheduling orders “are the heart of case management,”

13

Johnson v. Mammoth
A “scheduling

Johnson, 975

1
2

THEREFORE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT
IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
icido3

November 15, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14