Hale et al v. Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc. et al

Filing 27

STIPULATION and ORDER 26 Continuing Initial Scheduling Conference and Extending Time for Defendant to Respond to Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/16/2016. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 4/20/2016 at 09:30 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.(Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

David J. Cooper, SBN 47615
Vanessa Franco Chavez, SBN 266724
KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER,
COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP
4550 California Ave., Second Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 661-326-0418
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

10
11
12

STEPHEN HALE and O’BRIAN RANGEL
Individually, on Behalf of Themselves, and All
Others Similarly Situated,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING
(CALIFORNIA) INC., ENSIGN ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., and ENSIGN UNITED
STATES DRILLING, INC.,

18

Case No. 1:15-cv-01042-JLT
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND
EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO DISCOVERY;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
(Doc. 26)

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiffs STEPHEN HALE and O’BRIAN
RANGEL (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING
(CALIFORNIA), INC., ENSIGN ENERGY SERVICES, INC., and ENSIGN UNITED STATES
DRILLING, INC. (collectively “Defendants”), through their attorneys of record in this case, with
reference to the following facts:
1.

On July 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging violations of the

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), codified at 29 U.S.C. §
2101 et seq. and California Labor Code § 1400 et seq. (“Cal-WARN Act”);
2.

Defendants Ensign United States Drilling, Inc. and Ensign United States Drilling
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

1

(California), Inc. answered the Complaint on September 2, 2015. Defendant Ensign Energy

2

Services, Inc. answered the Complaint on September 10, 2015;

3
4

3.

Counsel for the Parties participated in conference calls pursuant to Rule 26 on

October 1, 2015 and October 7, 2015;

5

4.

On January 14, 2016, Plaintiffs served Defendant Ensign United States Drilling

6

(California), Inc. with Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents, for which responses

7

were due to be served to Plaintiffs on February 16, 2016;

8
9

5.

On January 19, 2016, Counsel for the Parties participated in a third conference call

to discuss the Parties’ discovery plan and other matters to be covered in the joint status report;

10

6.

On February 3, 2016, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a draft Joint Status

11

Report and the Parties participated in an additional conference call regarding a discovery plan and

12

motions designed to identify significant issues in the case, as well as the possibility of dismissing

13

Ensign Energy Services, Inc. from the Complaint;

14

7.

On February 11, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 6-

15

144(a) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to extend Ensign’s

16

time for responding to the Requests for Production until March 16, 2016 (Dkt. No. 22.);

17

8.

On March 2, 2016, the Court set the Initial Scheduling Conference for March 30,

18

2016 at 8:30 a.m. at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.

19

Thurston (Dkt. No. 25.);

20

9.

On March 8, 2016, Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a revised draft Joint Status

21

Report, which included a detailed summary of Defendants’ proposed discovery plan and a

22

spreadsheet setting forth a proposed, tiered schedule for producing currently identified documents

23

responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents;

24

10.

On March 9, 2016, the Parties met and conferred regarding (a) Defendants’

25

revisions to Plaintiffs’ draft Joint Status Report, which set forth Defendants’ proposal to initially

26

prioritize discovery to address issues raised in Defendants’ anticipated Motion for Summary

27

Judgment against each of the two named plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ anticipated certification motion;

28

(b) the possibility of dismissing Ensign Energy Services, Inc. without prejudice; and (c) Ensign
2

30
3FH4678

31

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

1

United States Drilling (California), Inc.’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of

2

Documents;

3

11.

Defendants have agreed to provide Plaintiffs a copy of the draft Motion for

4

Summary Judgment by March 16, 2016 so that the Parties can, if possible, negotiate a stipulated

5

hearing schedule that permits sufficient time for Plaintiffs to conduct discovery concerning the

6

relevant issues in the case;

7

12.

The Parties have agreed to enter a stipulation dismissing Ensign Energy Services,

8

Inc. from this action without prejudice subject to a tolling agreement and Plaintiffs’ continued

9

ability to conduct discovery related to this Defendant;

10

13.

The Parties have agreed that they are making progress in narrowing the scope of

11

differences between the Parties’ respective positions related to discovery and would benefit from

12

additional time to finalize the Joint Status Report and Proposed Discovery Plan;

13
14

14.

No previous continuances or extensions of time to file a Joint Status Report have

been sought by the Parties;

15

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and jointly request that the Court continue the

16

Initial Scheduling Conference until April 20, 2016, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar

17

permits, and extend Ensign United States Drilling (California), Inc.’s deadline for responding to

18

Requests for Production of Documents to the dates set forth in the Parties’ Proposed Discovery

19

Plan, if the Parties are able to agree upon a discovery schedule, or otherwise until April 29, 2016

20

or such other date as set by the Court at the Initial Scheduling Conference.

21
22

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: March_____, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

23

KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER
COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP

24

By:

25

___________________________________
VANESSA FRANCO CHAVEZ
Attorneys for Defendants

26
27
28
3

30
3FH4678

31

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

1

Dated: March______, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

2

LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP

3

By:
___________________________________
CHRISTOPHER J. KUPKA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs STEPHEN HALE
and O’BRIAN RANGEL

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

30
3FH4678

31

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

1

ORDER

2
3

Based on the Stipulation to Continue the Initial Scheduling Conference and Extend time

4

for Defendant to Respond to Discovery submitted by the parties, and good cause appearing, the

5

Court hereby orders that:

6
7

1.

The March 30, 2016 Initial Scheduling Conference, and all deadlines related

thereto, are vacated.

8

2.

The Initial Scheduling Conference is continued to April 20, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

9

3.

The parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report at least 15 days before the Initial

10

Status Conference.

11

4.

Ensign United States Drilling (California), Inc.’s deadline for responding to

12

Request for Production of Documents is extended and will be determined in accordance with the

13

Parties’ discovery plan, or otherwise, as set by the Court at the Initial Scheduling Conference.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 16, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

30
3FH4678

31

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO
CONTINUE INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE