Quinones v. Donahoe

Filing 52

STIPULATION and ORDER to Continue Pre-Trial and Trial Dates, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/26/2016. (Close of Non Expert Discovery continued to: 4/11/2016, Non- Dispositive Motions continued to: 4/25/2016, Dispositive Motions continued to: 6/6/2016, Pretrial Conference previously set for 5/23/2016 is CONTINUED to 9/6/2016 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd, and Jury Trial previously set for 7/19/2016 is CONTINUED to 10/25/2016, at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
ALYSON A. BERG
Assistant United States Attorney
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendant MEGAN BRENNAN, POSTMASTER
GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIPE S. QUINONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01553-DAD-EPG
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL
DATES

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, POSTMASTER
GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff Felipe S. Quinones (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Megan J. Brennan, (“Defendant”), by

19

and through the undersigned counsel for the respective parties, hereby stipulate to continue the dates

20

in this action for the good cause set forth below.

21

This action arises from Plaintiff’s challenge to his removal from the position of a part time

22

flexible clerk in the Lindsay Post Office alleging religious discrimination. Defendant disputes

23

Plaintiff’s claims because it would be an undue hardship on the operations of the Lindsay Post Office

24

to allow Plaintiff to have every Saturday off as there is only one other part time clerk to perform

25

those duties on Saturdays.

26

After engaging in extensive discovery including exchanging over 13,000 pages of documents

27

and taking nine depositions, with three more confirmed for January 28, 2016, the parties agree that

28

with a short continuance the matter will be in a position for motions for summary judgment. At this
1

1

time there are only four remaining depositions to be taken of the Postal Service management

2

personnel which need to be set after the parties resolve their disputes regarding the scope of

3

discovery in connection with Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim, including but not limited to the

4

question of applicable “comparators.” The parties are also continuing their meet and confer efforts

5

regarding the scope of discovery as it pertains to the question of what constitutes an “adverse action”

6

in the context of the claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint as limited by Judge O’Neill’s

7

Order on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

8

These meet and confer efforts continue while Defendant is finalizing its review of almost

9

2000 pages of potentially responsive documents to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests for relevancy,

10

and the proper redactions of attorney-client communications. It is anticipated the production will

11

occur on or before February 1, 2016. Meanwhile to conserve the Court’s and parties’ time and

12

resources, additional time is necessary to allow the parties to reach a compromise and potentially

13

avoid any future motions on the scope of the documents to be produced to Plaintiff, which affect the

14

remaining four depositions. While the parties are optimistic that they can resolve most of their

15

differences informally, a brief extension of the current deadlines to allow the parties to thoroughly

16

exhaust their meet and confer efforts before seeking court intervention is warranted.

17

After court intervention, if necessary on limited matters, the parties intend to promptly file

18

motions for summary judgment. The parties agree that it is in the best interest of all involved

19

(including the Court) that the dispositive motions not be filed until a ruling is made on the disputed

20

discovery issues. Otherwise, the parties fear that the motions will be filed and then objections raised

21

that will delay any rulings and ultimately require that the trial date be continued. To avoid the

22

motions being filed without an adjudication of the disputed legal issues, including but not limited to,

23

the scope of comparators and the application of the “adverse action” requirement to the claims

24

alleged by Plaintiff, would result in multiple depositions of the same witnesses which can be avoided

25

by seeking court intervention before conducting the final four depositions.

26

In an effort to continue the good faith efforts by the parties to resolve their discovery disputes

27

informally and conserve judicial resources until absolutely necessary, and allow for complete

28

dispositive motions, the parties stipulate and agree to continue the following dates, and base it on the
2

1

above-stated good cause:
Old Date

2

New Date

3

Close of Non Expert Discovery

February 1, 2016

April 11, 2016

4

Non- Dispositive Motions

February 15, 2016

April 25, 2016

5

Dispositive Motions

March 28, 2016

June 6, 2016

6

Pre Trial Conference

May 24, 2016

September 6, 2016

7

Trial Date:

July 19, 2016 (3-4 days)1

October 25, 2016

8
Respectfully submitted,

9
10

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

11
12

Dated: January 26, 2016

13
14

/s/Alyson A. Berg
ALYSON A. BERG
Attorney for Defendant Megan A. Brennan
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
CHURCH STATE COUNCIL

15

(As authorized 01/26/16)

16

Dated: January 26 , 2016

17
18
19

/s/Alan J. Reinach
Alan J. Reinach
Jonathon Cherne
Attorneys for Plaintiff Felipe S. Quinones
SOTTILE & BALTAXE

20
(As authorized 01/26/16)

21

Dated: January 26, 2016

22
23

///

24

///

25

/s/Timothy Sottile
Timothy Sottile
Attorneys for Plaintiff Felipe S. Quinones

///

26
27
28

1

The parties also discussed that the trial cannot likely be concluded in three to four days as originally
anticipated. Based on the number of witnesses and documents, it is agreed that an eight day trial
estimate after jury selection is more realistic.
3

ORDER

1

Having reviewed the stipulation submitted by the parties, the dates are continued as

2
3

referenced above.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

January 26, 2016

8

DALE A. DROZD

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4