Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.

Filing 119

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER amending the previous scheduling order, document 117 ; order signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/2/2009. (Rooney, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I. 28 1 Date of Scheduling Conference. Hearing re Class Certification: 1/10/11 11:00 Ctrm. 3 Replies re Class Certification Filing Deadline: 12/6/10 Opposition re Class Certification Filing Deadline: 10/26/10 Motions re Class Certification Filing Deadline: 8/26/10 IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Master Case Number: 1:07-cv-1314 OWW GSA AMENDED SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Discovery Cut-Off re Whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a Proper Party Defendant: 10/26/09 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline re Whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a Proper Party Defendant: 11/30/09 Class Certification Discovery Cut-Off: 6/24/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II.

June 25, 2009. Appearances Of Counsel. Interim Lead Counsel Monica Balderrama, Esq., appeared on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq., Linda P. Whitehead, Esq., and Larry W. Lee, Esq., appeared as Liaison Counsel on behalf of Plaintiff Loraine Naranjo. Timothy J. Donahue, Esq., appeared as Liaison Counsel on behalf of Plaintiff Miriam Leyva. Irell & Manella LLP by Andra B. Greene, Esq., and Julie M. Davis, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., and Yum! Brands, Inc. Littler Mendelson by Spencer H. Hipp, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., and Yum! Brands, Inc. III. Cooperation Between Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel. 1. Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel for Naranjo

are directed to meet and confer to reach resolution on issues of their cooperation and administration and handling of their respective responsibilities in this litigation. In the event

counsel are unable to agree on the terms and conditions of their respective roles on or before August 10, 2009, Liaison Counsel for Naranjo may file any motion concerning cooperation and administrative issues between Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel. IV. Summary of Pleadings. Plaintiffs' Statement 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

On May 19, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' motions

for consolidation of the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva, and Naranjo Actions for all purposes through trial and, on June 9, 2009, issued a Pretrial Order Regarding Consolidation of Pending Actions and Appointment of Initiative Legal Group LLP as Interim Lead Counsel ("Pretrial Order"), which directed Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Complaint on or before June 30, 2009. 2. Plaintiffs will be filing a Consolidated Complaint,

which alleges the following claims against Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of nonexempt or hourly-paid employees: a. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003, until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper wages. b. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper overtime wages. c. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper minimum wages. d. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit missed meal periods and were not paid proper wages in lieu thereof. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

e.

That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit missed rest periods and were not paid proper wages in lieu thereof. f. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California were provided inaccurate wage statements from September 7, 2006 until the resolution of this lawsuit. g. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California incurred business-related expenses and costs that were not reimbursed from September 7, 2003 until the resolution of this lawsuit. h. That exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell

Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California were not paid all vested accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or floating holiday pay) at the end of their employment from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit. i. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco

Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. in the State of California were not timely tendered their wages upon termination of employment from September 7, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit. j. That Defendants have refused to secure the payment Instead,

of workers compensation benefits to Plaintiff Leyva. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants deliberately, intentionally, and wrongfully fired Plaintiff Levya without just cause, ending her employment on July 26, 2007. 3. On behalf of the putative class members, Plaintiffs

seek to recover unpaid compensation and unlawfully withheld wages, including the interest thereon, as well as damages, and statutory penalties for the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs further seek attorneys' fees and costs. 4. Additionally, Plaintiff Hardiman seeks penalties under

the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq. ("PAGA"), for the applicable limitations period for violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 510, 512, 1198, 2800 and 2802. Plaintiffs' Statement If the Threshold Issue of Yum! Brands, Inc.'s Liability is Met. 5. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint will also allege

claims against Yum! Brands, Inc. on behalf of a putative class of non-exempt or hourly-paid employees. Defendants are expected to

file a motion on the threshold issue of whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a proper named defendant in the consolidated actions. If

Plaintiffs prevail on the issue of Yum! Brands, Inc.'s liability, the following additional claims will be at issue: k. That non-exempt or hourly paid employees of Yum!

Brands, Inc. in the State of California from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper minimum wages. l. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum! 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Brands, Inc. in the State of California from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit were not paid proper overtime wages. m. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum!

Brands, Inc. in the State of California were provided inaccurate wage statements from November 5, 2007 until the resolution of this lawsuit. n. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum!

Brands, Inc. in the State of California incurred business-related expenses and costs that were not reimbursed from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit. o. That exempt or hourly-paid employees of Taco Bell

Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., and/or Yum! Brands, Inc. in the State of California were not paid all vested accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or floating holiday pay) at the end of their employment from November 5, 2004 until the resolution of this lawsuit. p. That non-exempt or hourly-paid employees of Yum!

Brands, Inc. in the State of California were not timely tendered their wages upon termination of employment from November 5, 2005 until the resolution of this lawsuit. 6. On behalf of the putative class members, Plaintiffs

seek to recover unpaid compensation and unlawfully withheld wages, including the interest thereon, as well as damages, and statutory penalties for the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs further seek attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' Statement 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Defendants Taco Bell or Taco Bell of America employed

Plaintiffs and other persons as non-exempt or hourly paid restaurant employees in California. Although Plaintiffs have not

yet filed their Consolidated Complaint and thus, Defendants have not yet responded, Defendants deny any and all allegations that Plaintiffs assert above and have previously asserted in each individual action prior to consolidation. Specifically,

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs or any other putative class member are entitled to any type of relief in this action, including, without limitation, unpaid compensation, unreimbursed business expenses, wages and interest thereon, damages, statutory penalties, and penalties under PAGA. Defendants deny that

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief they seek from the Court. 2. Defendants also deny that Plaintiff Leyva was

wrongfully terminated, and they deny that Plaintiff Leyva is entitled to any type of relief for her alleged wrongful termination claim. Defendants also believe that Plaintiff Leyva

has no basis for including in the Consolidated Complaint a cause of action to secure the payment of workers' compensation benefits to her, as such a cause of action was not asserted in her complaint filed in her individual action. Defendants' Statement Regarding the Threshold Issue of Whether Yum and Its "Retail Restaurant Subsidiaries" are Integrated Enterprises. 3. Plaintiffs assert that they will claim in their

Consolidated Complaint that Yum and "Yum's retail restaurant subsidiaries" are integrated enterprises making Yum the employer 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of individuals working in "Yum's retail restaurant subsidiaries." Yum plans to file a motion for summary judgment on this issue as soon as possible which, if granted, will dispose of all claims against Yum and any Yum retail restaurant subsidiaries not specifically named in the Consolidated Complaint. 4. Yum denies that it and its retail restaurant

subsidiaries are integrated enterprises. V. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings. Plaintiffs' Statement 1. Consistent with the Court's June 9, 2009 Pretrial

Order, Plaintiffs will be filing a Consolidated Complaint on or before June 30, 2009. Defendants will have twenty-one (21) days

from service of the Consolidated Complaint to answer or otherwise respond. Defendants' Statement 2. While the June 9, 2009 Pretrial Order requires

Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Complaint on or before June 30, 2009, this Order does not permit Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings by adding new allegations against the defendants or adding additional parties to the action. To the extent that

Plaintiffs attempt to broaden the causes of actions they assert through the Consolidated Complaint, Defendants believe that this is not permitted by the June 9, 2009 Pretrial Order. VI. Factual Summary. A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 1. Plaintiff Medlock is an individual resident of the

Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, at all times 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

alleged in the complaint. 2. Plaintiff Medlock was employed at times alleged in Discovery will ascertain

the complaint by Taco Bell Corp.

whether Ms. Medlock was employed by any other named Defendant. 3. Plaintiff Hardiman was formerly a resident of the Discovery will ascertain the

Eastern District of California.

time periods during which Plaintiff Hardiman was a resident of the Eastern District of California. 4. Plaintiff Hardiman was employed by Taco Bell Corp.

and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. Discovery will ascertain the time periods during which Plaintiff Hardiman was employed by Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. 5. Plaintiff Leyva is an individual resident of the

State of California, at all times alleged in the complaint. 6. Plaintiff Leyva was employed at certain times

alleged in the complaint by Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. Discovery will ascertain whether Ms. Leyva was

employed by any other named Defendant. 7. Plaintiff Naranjo is an individual resident of the

State of California, at all times alleged in the complaint. 8. Plaintiff Naranjo was employed at certain times

alleged in the complaint by Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. Discovery will ascertain whether Ms. Naranjo was

employed by any other named Defendant. 9. Taco Bell Corp. is a California corporation

licensed to do and doing business in the State of California. 10. Taco Bell of America, Inc. is a Delaware

corporation licensed to do business in the State of California. 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/// B. Contested Facts. 1. Whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a joint employer or

integrated enterprise with its subsidiaries, including Taco Bell Corp. and/or Taco Bell of America, Inc. 2. Whether Defendants failed to pay proper overtime,

in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198. 3. Whether Defendants failed to provide meal periods

or compensation in lieu thereof, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a). 4. Whether Defendants failed to provide rest periods

or compensation in lieu thereof, in violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a). 5. Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as

required by California Labor Code § 226(a). 6. Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all

wages due to Plaintiffs and putative class members upon their discharge or resignation, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202. 7. Whether Defendants' conduct was willful or

reckless under California Labor Code § 203. 8. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages, in

violation of California Labor Code § 204. 9. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum wages, in

violation of California Labor Code § 1194. 10. Whether Defendants forced Plaintiffs and other

putative class members to contribute to the capital and expenses of Defendants' businesses, in violation of California Labor Code 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

§§ 2800 and 2802. 11. Whether Defendants failed to pay all vested

accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or floating holiday pay) during and at the end of their employment. 12. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business

practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 13. Whether any damages, restitution, monetary

penalties, or PAGA penalties resulted from Defendants' alleged violations of California law. 14. Whether any damages, restitution, monetary

penalties, or PAGA penalties resulted from Defendants' alleged violations of California law. 15. Whether Defendants' affirmative defenses bar the

claims of Plaintiffs and other putative class members or limit their recovery, if any, of damages, restitution, monetary penalties, or PAGA penalties. 16. Whether the claims of Plaintiffs are subject to

class certification. 17. Whether Defendants deliberately, intentionally,

and wrongfully fired Plaintiff Leyva without just cause, ending her employment on July 26, 2007. VII. Legal Issues. A. Uncontested. 1. 2. 3. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The parties agree that the substantive law of the 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

State of California provides the rule of decision. B. Contested. 1. Whether there are common questions of law and fact

and, therefore, whether certification as a class action is appropriate (including but not limited to issues of adequacy, commonality, typicality, and superiority). 2. Whether Defendants failed to pay proper overtime,

in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198. 3. Whether Defendants failed to provide meal periods

or compensation in lieu thereof, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a) and 512(a). 4. Whether Defendants failed to provide rest periods

or compensation in lieu thereof, in violation of California Labor Code § 226.7(a). 5. Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as

required by California Labor Code § 226(a). 6. Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all

wages due to Plaintiffs and putative class members upon their discharge or resignation, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202. 7. Whether Defendants' conduct was willful or

reckless under California Labor Code § 203. 8. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages, in

violation of California Labor Code § 204. 9. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum wages, in

violation of California Labor Code § 1194. 10. Whether Defendants forced Plaintiffs and other

putative class members to contribute to the capital and expenses 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of Defendants' businesses, in violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802. 11. Whether Defendants failed to pay all vested

accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or floating holiday pay) during the course of employment and at the end of their employment. 12. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business

practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 13. Whether any damages, restitution, PAGA penalties,

or monetary penalties resulted from Defendants' alleged violations of California law. 14. Whether Defendants' affirmative defenses bar the

claims of Plaintiffs and other putative class members or limit their recovery, if any, of damages, restitution, monetary penalties, or PAGA penalties. 15. Whether Defendants deliberately, intentionally,

and wrongfully fired Plaintiff Leyva without just cause, ending her employment on July 26, 2007. VIII. 1. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. The parties have not consented to transfer the

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial. VIX. Corporate Identification Statement. 1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information. X. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date. Initial Disclosures 1. Although initial disclosures were exchanged in the

Medlock and Hardiman Actions prior to consolidation (but not in the Leyva or Naranjo Actions), the parties have agreed that consolidated initial disclosures will be exchanged 5 court days after Plaintiffs file the Consolidated Complaint. Plaintiffs' Statement 2. Plaintiffs have concluded one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, To that

and expect to conduct additional 30(b)(6) depositions.

end, Plaintiffs have noticed additional 30(b)(6) depositions and the parties have been negotiating in good faith to schedule those additional depositions, including for the vacation claim. Plaintiffs also expect to conduct at least one deposition for every expert designated by Defendants and a number of individual depositions. The number of expected depositions will depend on

the course of discovery and the documents available for Plaintiff's examination. 3. Plaintiffs have propounded written discovery on

Defendants, including interrogatories, requests for documents, and requests for admissions, and expect to propound additional written discovery in follow-up to the earlier discovery. To the

extent there are any discovery disputes, the parties will meet and confer about them in good faith in an effort to avoid Court intervention. Additionally, in light of the consolidation, 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs intend to propound written discovery regarding the vacation claim against Defendants, the propriety of Yum! Brands, Inc. as a defendant, and whether Plaintiff Leyva was wrongfully terminated. 4. Plaintiffs anticipate calling a number of putative

class members to offer a representative sampling of the Class as a whole. Plaintiffs also anticipate calling at least one expert

to testify on liability issues and at least one expert to testify on damage issues. Damages are expected to be proven by Until additional discovery is conducted,

statistical sampling.

Plaintiffs cannot estimate the number of hostile witnesses that will be called. 5. The allegations in this matter implicate the policies

applicable to a large number of current employees and former employees over a lengthy time period and across the entire state. Accordingly, Plaintiffs believe that certification discovery should be allowed at this time. Plaintiffs recognize that some

discovery may impact both certification and merits discovery; however, Plaintiffs will focus to ensure that the discovery sought will relate to the certification issue, even to the extent it may impact liability or damages issues.1 6.
1

Defendants intend to re-depose Plaintiff Hardiman.

The clearest example of this is class size. Discovery related to this issue would impact not only certification issues, i.e., numerosity, but would also relate to the calculation of damages, an issue that is typically related to merits discovery. By refusing the false dichotomy between class discovery and merits discovery, and instead focusing on discovery that impacts certification issues, the parties will avoid discovery battles that will likely need extensive involvement by this Court. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), a court order is required to re-depose a witness previously deposed in the same case. Medlock and Hardiman actions were deemed related on August 4, 2008 and subsequently consolidated, along with the Leyva and Naranjo actions, on May 19, 2009. Although the prior deposition The

of Ms. Hardiman ostensibly was not, in name, a "named plaintiff" deposition, it was one in substance. Plaintiff therefore does

not understand Defendants' request for a second deposition of Ms. Hardiman, which would, in contravention of the policies behind consolidation, be duplicative and burdensome. Defendants' Statement 7. Defendants agree that discovery should be conducted in

two phases, with the current phase being limited to class certification discovery. The second phase, if necessary, would

occur after the Court's ruling on any motion or motions related to class certification. This second phase would relate to the

merits of Plaintiffs' claims, including damages. 8. Defendants believe that in the first phase of

discovery, Plaintiffs should be precluded from taking discovery from Yum on any issue not directly related to their theory that Yum and Yum's "retail restaurant subsidiaries" are integrated enterprises. If Yum's motion for summary judgment is granted, no Defendants'

other discovery related to Yum will be necessary.

proposal will result in a meaningful conservation of resources, if Yum's motion is granted. Additionally, since Yum intends to

bring its motion for summary judgment early and Plaintiffs propose that the class certification discovery cut-off date be set for June 2010, Plaintiffs will have plenty of time to 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

complete additional discovery regarding Yum if Yum does not prevail on its summary judgment motion. 9. Defendants anticipate deposing Naranjo, Leyva and

Hardiman as named plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases and several other individuals. Defendants have already deposed

Medlock and Hardiman, but at the time Defendants deposed Hardiman, Hardiman was not a named plaintiff and Medlock and Hardiman were not deposed about vacation time claims or any issues related to Yum. The number of expected depositions will

depend on the course of discovery and the evidence submitted in support of Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification. Defendants expect to conduct at least one Defendants

deposition for every expert designated by Plaintiffs. also expect to propound additional written discovery.

Changes to Timing, Form, or Requirement for Disclosures. Plaintiffs' Statement. 1. In light of the consolidation, the inherent complexity

of a wage and hour class action, and the fact that written discovery has already been taken in the Medlock and Hardiman Actions, Plaintiffs request that Plaintiffs and Defendants each be able to propound an additional 50 interrogatories beyond the number previously propounded. Defendants' Statement. 2. Defendants agree with Plaintiffs' position that

Plaintiffs will be entitled to propound an additional 50 interrogatories in the Consolidated Action and that Defendants will be entitled to propound the same number of additional interrogatories. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/// Subjects on Which Discovery May be Needed. Plaintiff's Statement. 1. Plaintiffs have conducted discovery - and intend to

conduct further discovery - on the following, non-exhaustive list of subjects: whether certification as a class action is appropriate; whether Defendants failed to pay proper wages, in violation of the California Labor Code; whether Defendants failed to pay proper overtime, in violation of the California Labor Code; whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required by the California Labor Code; whether Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; whether Defendants forced Plaintiffs and other putative class members to contribute to the capital and expenses of Defendants' businesses, whether Defendants failed to timely pay employees who left Defendants' employ; whether Defendants' conduct was willful or reckless; whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., and the appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary penalties, if any, resulting from Defendants' alleged violations of California law. 2. Plaintiffs will meet and confer with Defendants

regarding any discovery disputes in an effort to avoid Court intervention. 3. Additionally, Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery

regarding, without limitation, whether Defendants failed to pay all vested accrued vacation wages (including, but not limited to, vacation pay, personal day pay, personal holiday pay, and/or 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

floating holiday pay) during the course of employment and at the end of their employment; whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a proper defendant in the consolidated actions; and whether Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff Leyva. Defendants' Statement. 4. In the first discovery phase, Defendants intend to

conduct discovery on all issues related to whether certification as a class action is appropriate. Only if Plaintiffs'

anticipated Motion for Class Certification is granted will Defendants then proceed to the second discovery phase and conduct discovery on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and their defenses as well as on damages issues. Claims of Privilege or of Protection. 1. In the Court's June 9, 2009, Pretrial Order, the Court

indicated that the protective order that was entered in the Medlock Action will apply to and be deemed entered in the In Re Taco Bell Wage And Hour Actions. Disclosure or Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. 1. The parties have met and conferred and confirmed that

each has taken steps to help ensure the preservation of potential discovery materials. The parties have also met and conferred

regarding the disclosure and discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced, pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court Scheduling of Case. 1. The issue of whether Yum! Brands, Inc. is a proper 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

party defendant shall be addressed by dispositive motion.

The

parties shall have 120 days to conduct discovery on this issue through and including October 26, 2009. Within 30 days

following, Defendants shall file any dispositive motion concerning Yum! Brands, Inc.'s inclusion in the lawsuit as a Defendant on or before November 30, 2009. The filing and hearing

schedule for the Yum! party issue shall be in accordance with the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Class Certification Schedule. 2. The close of class certification discovery shall be The deadline to file motions re: class Oppositions shall be due

June 24, 2010.

certification is August 26, 2010. October 26, 2010. 6, 2010.

Replies shall be filed on or before December

The class certification motion will be heard on January

10, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. and the Court will reserve extended time for oral arguments. 3. The parties agree that during the briefing period for

class certification motions, that limited discovery shall be permitted for issues raised by evidentiary showings made by Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify and Defendants' Oppositions to the Motion for Certification. XI. Motions - Hard Copy. 1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to

the Court of any motions filed that exceed ten pages and any motions that have exhibits attached. Exhibits shall be marked

with protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily identify such exhibits. XII. Trial. 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 XV.

1.

Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

Defendants

reserve the right to object to Plaintiffs' entitlement to a jury trial. XIII. 1. Further Scheduling Conference. Following the decision on the Class Certification

Motion, a Further Scheduling Conference will be held to adopt a final schedule for the trial and disposition of this action. XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 1. Premature issue at this time.

Related Matters Pending. 1. On February 11, 2009, Plaintiff Endang Widjaja filed a

class action complaint against Taco Bell Corp. and Yum! Brands, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange alleging four causes of action: failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices in violation of § 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, and conversion. The Widjaja action was

removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 8, 2009, Judge Carter granted

Taco Bell and Yum's motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and the Widjaja case is currently being transferred to this Court. Taco Bell and Yum will file a notice of related case as soon as the Widjaja case is formally transferred to this Court. 2. Taco Bell and Yum believe that the Widjaja case is

duplicative of the Consolidated Cases and, accordingly, Widjaja should be dismissed or stayed or, in the alternative, 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

consolidated with the Consolidated Cases.

Counsel for Taco Bell

and Yum have forwarded the Widjaja complaint to Interim Lead Counsel and are meeting and conferring with Interim Lead Counsel on how to address handling the Widjaja case. XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure. 1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto. XVII. 1. Effect Of This Order. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is If the parties determine at

specifically reserved for this case.

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent scheduling conference. 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. /// /// 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 2, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23