Finder v. Leprino Foods Company et al

Filing 137

ORDER ON DISCOVERY PERIOD. Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/27/2022. (The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for purposes of reviewing the Discovery Plan and setting a new scheduling order.)(Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

JERROD FINDER, on behalf of himself
and a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-02059-AWI-BAM
ORDER ON DISCOVERY PERIOD

v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a
Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS
DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a
Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

15
16
On November 15, 2016, the Court consolidated Finder v. Leprino, 1:13-cv-2059-AWI17
BAM and Talavera v. Leprino, 1:15-cv-105-AWI-BAM. See Doc. No. 63. In issuing its order,
18
19
20

the Court acknowledged that “[i]n Talavera, the parties have completed class certification-related
discovery and [filed] a motion for class certification,” but “[i]n Finder, the Court understands that
no discovery has been conducted.” Id. at 6. This distinction in discovery status is significant

21
because the pending Talavera motion for class certification covers only the time period between
22
01/21/2011 and 09/12/2016 while the time period covered in Finder dates back to 12/17/2009. Id.
23
at 6, 8; see also Doc. No. 136 at 1-2. In other words, discovery and class certification briefing are
24
complete for the time period between 01/21/2011 and 09/12/2016 but not for the earlier time
25
period between 12/17/2009 and 01/20/2011. Accordingly, the Court noted it would be required to
26

both “maintain separate discovery procedures” and “delay [] the Talavera Action to allow

27
discovery in the Finder Action.” Doc. No. 63 at 6, 8.
28

1

In light of the parties’ representation that no discovery has been conducted for Plaintiff’s

2 claims covering the time period between 12/17/2009 and 01/20/2011, it is appropriate to have the
3 parties jointly file a Discovery Plan to investigate Plaintiff’s claims covering this time period. See
4 Ramirez v. Zimmerman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81336, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2019) (“Following
5 the consolidation, the parties submitted a joint discovery plan, the Court held a case management
6 conference, and issued a Consolidated Scheduling Order.”); Vazquez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co.,
7 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67163, *3 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018) (stating “several cases were
8 consolidated to the present action and the parties were ordered to file a new Joint Discovery Plan
9 to ‘supersede the Joint Discovery Plan’ previously filed”); Rainero v. Archon Corp., 2013 U.S.
10 Dist. LEXIS 159696, *3-4 (D. Nev. Nov. 7, 2013).
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

12

1. as soon as possible but no later than ten (10) days from service of this Order, the

13

parties shall jointly file a Discovery Plan regarding Plaintiff’s claims covering the time

14

period between 12/17/2009 and 01/20/2011. The Discovery Plan shall include dates

15

when the parties are required to file supplemental briefing to the pending Talavera

16

motion for class certification to account for this time period.

17
18

2. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for purposes of reviewing the
Discovery Plan and setting a new scheduling order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: September 27, 2022

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2