Silveira et al v. State of California et al

Filing 46

STIPULATION and Joint Request to Continue Mandatory Scheduling Conference; ORDER - Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is continued from 11/18/2013 to December 16, 2013 at 08:15 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/25/2013. (Herman, H)

9

JOAN A. MARKOFF
Chief Counsel, Bar No. 121787
DAVID J. NEILL
Deputy Chief Counsel, Bar No. 186997
LINDA A. MAYHEW
Assistant Chief Counsel, Bar No. 155049
DAVID D. KING
Labor Relations Counsel, Bar No. 252074
DAVID M. VILLALBA
Labor Relations Counsel, Bar No. 258974
Department of Human Resources
State of California
1515 S Street, North Building, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814-7243
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

10

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

14
15
16

GEORGETTE PICKETT, CHARLES
HUGHES, and FRANK SILVEIRA, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, in his capacity as the
Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; and DOES 2
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-CV-00084-AWI-BAM
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO
CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE; ORDER

Whereas, in a Stipulation and Joint Request to Continue Scheduling Conference filed on

25

August 13, 2013, the parties jointly requested continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling Conference

26

in light of the parties’ informal meet and confer discussions regarding potentially resolving the

27

instant action;

28

Whereas, on August 13, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Request, and continued
-1STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

1

the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to November 18, 2013;
Whereas, since the Court’s Order continuing the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, the

2
3

parties have discussed informal discovery in greater detail, addressing such matters as updated

4

contract language potentially affecting plaintiffs, and pay differential policy documents;

5
6

Whereas, as part of informal discovery discussions, defendant has offered to provide pay
differential policy documents specific to plaintiffs’ allegations;

7

Whereas, as part of informal discovery discussions, plaintiffs have offered to identify

8

specific pay periods during which plaintiffs allege Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations

9

occurred;

10

Whereas, as part of informal discovery discussions, defendant is investigating and inquiring

11

whether internal payroll documents specific to the pay periods during which violations were alleged

12

to have occurred can be produced to plaintiffs on an informal basis;

13

Whereas, whether defendant is able to produce the afore-mentioned internal payroll

14

documents on an informal basis has not yet been ascertained because, as defendant has expressed to

15

plaintiff, permissions from multiple levels of management must first be obtained;

16

Whereas, the parties are optimistic that the informal discussions and exchange of

17

information and documents will assist in the efficient resolution of the matters in dispute in this

18

action;

19

Whereas, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the parties to confer over a

20

proposed discovery plan by October 28th, 2013, submit a discovery plan 14 days afterwards, and

21

make initial disclosures by November 11, 2013;

22

Whereas, the parties agree that continuing the Mandatory Scheduling Conference and

23

related deadlines will facilitate a potential resolution of this action and conserve the resources of the

24

Court.

25

Whereas, David King, counsel for defendant, informs the Court of his unavailability from

26

December 19, 2013 until December 26, 2013, and respectfully requests the Court to not set the

27

Mandatory Scheduling Conference during this time.

28

///
-2STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

1

Accordingly, the parties to this action, through their respective attorneys of record, hereby

2

STIPULATE and JOINTLY REQUEST this Court continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference

3

for twenty-eight (28) days, or December 16, 2013, or to a date and time thereafter that is convenient

4

for the Court. The parties further STIPULATE and JOINTLY REQUEST this Court continue

5

related deadlines to meet and confer and submit a Joint Scheduling Report and discovery plan, and

6

deadline to provide initial disclosures, as set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7
8

Dated:

October 23, 2013

9

JOAN A. MARKOFF
Chief Counsel

10

DAVID J. NEILL
Deputy Chief Counsel

11
12

By: _/s/ David D. King_______________
DAVID D. KING,
Labor Relations Counsel
Attorney for Defendant

13
14
15
16
17

Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

October 23, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Majed Dakak
MAJED DAKAK
Attorney for Plaintiffs

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

1
2

ORDER
In consideration of the Parties’ Stipulation and Joint Request to Continue the Mandatory

3

Scheduling Conference, and related deadlines, and good cause having been shown, it is ORDERED

4

that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, currently set for November 18, 2013, shall be continued

5

to 8:15 a.m. on December 16, 2013. Related deadlines to meet and confer and submit a Joint

6

Scheduling Report, to provide initial disclosures, and to meet and confer and provide a written

7

discovery plan under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are similarly continued.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 25, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER