Silveira et al v. State of California et al

Filing 48

STIPULATION and JOINT Request to Continue Mandatory Scheduling Conference; ORDER - Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is continued from 12/16/203 to February 10, 2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/4/2013. (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

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.

22
23

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

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

24
25

October 24, 2013, the parties jointly requested continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling

26

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

27

resolving the instant action;

28

///
-1-

Whereas, on October 28, 2013, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Request, and continued

1
2

the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to December 16, 2013;

3

Whereas, since the Court’s Order continuing the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, the

4

parties have discussed the possibility of defendant producing documents in informal discovery,

5

with the hope that informal discovery might facilitate prompt resolution of the action prior to the

6

commencement of formal discovery.

7

Whereas, defendant has informed plaintiffs of updated collective bargaining agreement

8

language potentially affecting plaintiffs, and has provided plaintiffs pay differential policy

9

documents potentially affecting plaintiffs;

10

Whereas, defendant has agreed, subject to a written consent from plaintiffs, to produce in

11

informal discovery certain payroll documents it believes addresses plaintiffs’ claim alleging that

12

defendant improperly deducts from plaintiffs’ overtime compensation for retirement purposes;
Whereas, plaintiffs’ counsel has agreed and undertaken to obtain the written consent

13
14

defendant has required prior to disclosing any documents in informal discovery;

15

Whereas, in an effort to narrow the scope of documents that might be informally produced,

16

defendant has requested plaintiffs provide information identifying the pay periods during which

17

plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) occurred;

18

Whereas, in order to facilitate informal discovery and possible resolution of the case,

19

plaintiffs have undertaken, and continue to undertake, efforts to identify pay periods during which

20

plaintiffs allege FLSA violations occurred;

21

Whereas, in order to facilitate informal discovery and possible resolution of the case,

22

defendant has investigated and inquired, and continues to investigate and inquire, with each of the

23

correctional facilities at which the three named plaintiffs work, whether there are additional

24

documents pertaining to plaintiffs’ compensation which can be produced on an informal basis;

25

Whereas, both plaintiffs and defendant are hopeful that the dispute over whether defendant

26

violates the FLSA in the manner alleged in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint might be resolved

27

without the need for formal discovery;

28

///
-2-

1

Whereas, while plaintiffs and defendant continue to engage in informal discovery in good

2

faith, both plaintiffs and defendant agree that additional time is needed to conduct informal

3

discovery, and that additional time will allow the parties opportunity to determine whether the

4

action can be promptly resolved prior to the commencement of formal discovery;
Whereas, given plaintiffs’ action seeks only prospective declaratory relief, the parties agree

5
6

plaintiffs and putative collective action members will not be prejudiced by a continuance of the

7

mandatory scheduling conference date and related deadlines;

8
9

Whereas, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the parties to confer over
a proposed discovery plan by November 25th, 2013, or, at least 21 days before the Mandatory

10

Scheduling Conference, and submit a discovery plan and make initial disclosures by December 9,

11

2013, or, 14 days after the discovery conference;
Whereas, this Court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference requires parties to

12
13

confer over the Joint Scheduling Report by November 26, 2013, or, at least 20 days before the

14

Mandatory Scheduling Conference, and requires parties to submit a Joint Scheduling Report to the

15

Court by December 9, 2013, or, one (1) full week prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference

16

date;

17

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

18

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

19

Court.

20

Whereas, the parties recognize that due to various upcoming holidays and anticipated

21

vacations, multiple individuals who might facilitate the parties’ informal discovery efforts may be

22

unavailable at various times during the next several weeks;

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

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

until February 10, 2014, or to a date and time thereafter that is convenient for the Court. The parties

4

further STIPULATE and JOINTLY REQUEST this Court continue related deadlines to meet and

5

confer and submit a Joint Scheduling Report and discovery plan, and deadline to provide initial

6

disclosures, as set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Order Setting

7

Mandatory Scheduling Conference.

8
9
10

Dated:

December 2, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
JOAN A. MARKOFF
Chief Counsel

11
12

DAVID J. NEILL
Deputy Chief Counsel

13

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

14
15
16
17
18
19

Dated:

December 2, 2013

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

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 December 16, 2013, shall be continued

5

February 10, 2014, at 9:00 AM, in Courtroom 8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A.

6

McAuliffe.

7

Related deadlines to meet and confer and submit a Joint Scheduling Report, to provide

8

initial disclosures, and to meet and confer and provide a written discovery plan under Rule 26 of the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are similarly continued.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 4, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-