Rosales et al v. El Rancho Farms

Filing 24

STIPULATION and ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/24/2011. Class Certification 9/9/11, Class Discovery 6/3/11, Expert Discovery 7/11/11, Merits Discovery 2/3/12, Non-Dispositive Motion filing by 2/17 /2012, hearing by 3/19/2012, Dispositive Motion filing 4/6/12, hearing by 5/21/2012, Pretrial Conference set for 7/11/2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii.Jury Trial set for 9/11/2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1 STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191) 2 3 4 5 6

[e-mail] HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336) [e-mail] MARCO A. PALAU (Bar No. 242340) [e-mail] MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, California 94612-3547 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] A Professional Corporation DAVID A. ROSENFELD (SBN 058163) [e-mail] WILLIAM A. SOKOL (SBN 72740) [e-mail] 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] MILBERG LLP JEFF S. WESTERMAN (SBN 94559) [e-mail] SABRINA S. KIM (SBN 186242) [e-mail] NICOLE M. DUCKETT (SBN 198168) [e-mail] One California Plaza 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] CASE NO. 1:09-CV-0707-AWI-SMS STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

7 WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 8 9 10
1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

11 12 13

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

14 MARGARITA ROSALES and ANGELICA
ROSALES, on behalf of themselves and all 15 others similarly situated,

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

Plaintiffs, vs. EL RANCHO FARMS, and DOES 1-20, Defendants.

1 2

I. INTRODUCTION This action is one of six cases against grape growers in the Southern Central Valley

3 assigned to Judge Ishii. The six cases were originally filed as one action but severed and filed 4 individually by order of Judge Ishii. The scheduling orders for the six cases were set by Magistrate 5 Judge Snyder, to whom these cases were formerly assigned until approximately March 14, 2011, 6 and Judge Snyder treated the cases in a somewhat coordinated fashion. 7
During a discovery conference for a related case, Judge Snyder indicated that the Court

8 was not opposed to providing reasonable extensions in any of the grapes cases. Judge Snyder 9 indicated that the cases would likely not go to trial as scheduled given Judge Ishii's extremely 10 busy calendar, and that Judge Ishii was not opposed to extending case deadlines. Judge Snyder
1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

11 advised us that she would entertain requests for extensions and has stayed pertinent class 12 certification and expert deadlines in Soto v. Castlerock, 1:09-cv-701 pending the resolution of 13 discovery disputes among the parties in that case. According to Judge Snyder, the Castlerock 14 action was meant to serve as a test case of sorts for the others with respect to scheduling. Based on 15 Judge Snyder's guidance it is plaintiffs' counsel's understanding that deadlines in this case would 16 be extended, particularly given the circumstances of this case. 17 18 19
II. GOOD CAUSE FOR EXTENDING DEADLINES The parties are currently engaged in exchange and review of documents that are being

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

20 produced in response to discovery. However, certain issues have arisen over which the parties, 21 through their counsel, are meeting and conferring. In particular, some of the information that has 22 been produced and some information that has not yet been produced may be designated 23 confidential. As such, the parties are working on a draft of a stipulated and proposed protective 24 order which they intend to finalize as soon as possible and present to the Court for approval. In 25 addition, the parties are meeting and conferring over issues that pertain to the scope of the class 26 and scope of discovery. The parties have agreed to resolve the documentary discovery issues prior 27 to completing party depositions, and have also agreed that the production of documents should 28 1
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

1 occur prior to the taking of depositions. 2
The parties met and conferred regarding defendant's objections, and defendant has agreed

3 to supplement its production. Plaintiffs have supplemented their production once, but have not 4 completed their review of a sizeable file in a related bankruptcy case of a now defunct farm labor 5 contractor used by defendant that may contain responsive documents. Depending on the review of 6 this file, plaintiffs may supplement their production again. The parties have agreed to produce 7 documents ahead of depositions and, accordingly, have taken the 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant 8 and the depositions of plaintiffs off calendar until documents are exchanged. As such, the parties 9 have mutually agreed to take previously-scheduled party depositions off calendar until 10 documentary evidence is produced and counsel for the parties have adequate time to review and
1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

11 prepare. 12
Because the class period is very large, the class members are seasonal farmworkers, and

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

13 the employment records of the class appear to be within the possession of various contractors used 14 by defendant, it has been difficult for both parties to gather and produce all responsive discovery 15 needed for certification. The fact that this case, originally filed in 2005, was inactive for purposes 16 of discovery until about a year ago does not help matters, as people and evidence have become 17 more difficult to locate with the passage of time. 18 19 20
III. STIPULATED EXTENSION OF DEADLINES Given the status of discovery described above, the parties believe that certain upcoming

21 deadlines should be extended. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend the 22 following deadlines: 23 24 25 26 Class Discovery: 27 28 2
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

Current Deadline Class Certification Filing: 4/1/11 2/1/11 3/18/11

Proposed Deadline 9/9/11 8/1/11 11/11/11

Expert Discovery:

1 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing: 2 3 4 Merits Discovery: 5 6 7 Pre-Trial Conference: 8 9 10
1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

3/11/11 8/19/11 7/1/11 None 10/21/11, 8:30am 12/6/11, 8:30am MALLISON & MARTINEZ

11/11/11 4/16/12 4/6/12

Dispositive Motion Filing:

Settlement Conference Date:

6/18/12 8/20/12

Trial Date: DATED: March 22, 2011

11 12 13 14 15 16 DATED: March 22, 2011 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

By:

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

/s/ Marco A. Palau STAN S. MALLISON HECTOR R. MARTINEZ MARCO A. PALAU JESSICA JUAREZ Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Christian Howland CHRISTIAN HOWLAND Attorneys for Defendant

3
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

1 2

ORDER Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause

3 and only with the judge's consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 4 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained, 5 6 7 8 9 Parties must "diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the 10 litigation." Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v.
1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

. . . Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily concerns the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment) . . .[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

11 Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the "good cause" standard requires the 12 parties demonstrate that "noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, 13 notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could 14 not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference 15 . . ." Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. 16
The Court notes that several of the dates that the parties seek to modify, have already

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

17 passed. Notably, the scheduling order issued in this case warned the parties, "If the parties 18 determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are 19 ORDERED to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation 20 or by subsequent status conference." (Doc. 21 at 12) Nevertheless, the parties offer no explanation 21 why they failed to comply with this order and seek amendment of the deadlines before the date 22 had passed. 23
Importantly, in Hardy v. County of El Dorado, the Court rejected a motion to extend the

24 discovery cut-off, filed three days before the discovery cut-off, finding that this demonstrates a 25 lack of diligence. The Court held, "Indeed, requesting the Court to modify the Scheduling Order 26 to extend the discovery cut-off date three days before the deadline does not constitute diligence." 27 Id., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75925, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008). Thus, it is unclear why the 28 parties believed that their stipulation to amend these dates in the scheduling order, would be
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

1 granted. Moreover, though the parties indicate that they have conducted some discovery, exactly 2 what has been done and when it was done, is not explained. Thus, the Court has insufficient 3 information to allow it to determine that the parties have diligently pursued discovery in this case. 4 Finally, the Court is mindful that this case was filed nearly two years ago and it appears that very 5 little progress has been made in bringing this case to fruition. 6
Despite the lack of good cause shown, the factual information that has been provided in the

7 stipulation makes clear that counsel has not met, and is unprepared to meet, the future deadlines in 8 currently set in this case. The Court recognizes, given these circumstances, that requiring 9 compliance with these dates would work a hardship to the parties and could unfairly disadvantage 10 plaintiffs' ability to prepare their motion for class certification by the April 1, 2011 deadline. On
1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

11 the other hand, many of the dates proposed by the parties are unworkable. For example, most 12 ignore the amount of time that has passed since the filing of this action. Also, the date proposed 13 for the dispositive motion filing date leaves insufficient time for the Court to hear and decide the 14 motion before the proposed pretrial conference date. 15 16
ORDER Based upon the foregoing, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

17 stipulation to amend the scheduling order as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

New Deadline Class Certification Filing: Class Discovery: Expert Discovery: Merits Discovery: Non-Dispositive Motion Filing: Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing: Dispositive Motion Filing: Dispositive Motion Hearing: Pre-Trial Conference: 9/9/11 6/3/11 7/11/11 2/3/12 2/17/12 3/19/12 4/6/12 5/21/12 7/11/12

1

Trial Date:

9/11/12

2 Counsel is admonished to diligently pursue discovery of this matter and to conscientiously adhere 3 to the amended deadlines. The Court will not again modify case dates that have already passed. 4 Moreover, no further amendments to the scheduling order will be granted absent a showing 5 of exceptional good cause and only upon a showing that counsel has acted diligently. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10
DEAC_Signature-END:

Dated:

March 24, 2011

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

11 12 9j7khijed 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ