U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Marquez Brothers International, Inc. et al

Filing 116

ORDER GRANTING, in part, and DENYING, in part, plaintiff's request for a protective order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/11/2018. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:17-cv-00044-AWI-EPG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

14
(ECF No. 109)
15

MARQUEZ BROTHERS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

16
Defendant.
17
18

On December 10, 2018, the Court held a discovery status conference. During the

19

conference, the Court heard from the parties regarding Plaintiff’s request for a protective order

20

prohibiting the depositions of Melissa Barrios, the Director of EEOC’s Fresno Local Office,

21

and Julio Espino, an EEOC investigator (ECF No. 109 at 3). For the reasons discussed during

22

the conference, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s request for a protective

23

order.

24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the request for protective order (ECF No. 109 at 3) is granted in
part and denied in part as follows:
1. As to Melissa Barrios, Defendants may depose Ms. Barrios regarding what, if any,

27

pre-suit investigation was conducted by EEOC into whether there was reasonable

28

cause to believe that Defendants have engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of

1

1

race discrimination outside the Hanford branch. Defendants are not to venture into

2

the territory of the adequacy of the investigation or the conciliation process.

3
4

2. As to Julio Espino:
a. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants are directed to meet and confer

5

regarding a stipulation that Plaintiff will not use the notes from interviews

6

conducted during the investigation, or the recollections of witnesses regarding

7

those interviews, in its substantive case, including summary judgment or trial.

8

This does not preclude any party from using evidence from witnesses to the

9

substantive events described in the interviews.

10

b. Defendants may serve on Plaintiff, no later than December 17, 2018, up to

11

ten (10) written questions for Mr. Espino concerning his interview notes in

12

order to resolve ambiguities regarding Plaintiff’s investigation, if any, into a

13

nationwide pattern or practice of race discrimination outside the Hanford

14

branch. Defendants are not to venture into the territory of the adequacy of the

15

investigation or the conciliation process.

16
17

c. Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants, no later than January 7, 2019,
Mr. Espino’s written responses to those questions.

18

d. Defendants are to file a written notice with the Court, no later than 12:00 p.m.

19

on January 9, 2019, if Defendants believe that the written responses provided

20

by Mr. Espino are inadequate and that a deposition of Mr. Espino is

21

necessary. Defendants are to include with such notice a copy of the written

22

responses provided by Mr. Espino. If Defendants so request, the Court will

23

promptly address Defendants’ request, with a telephonic conference if

24

necessary.

25 \\\
26 \\\
27 \\\
28 \\\

2

e. Plaintiffs are directed to ensure that Mr. Espino is available for a potential

1
2

deposition on January 10 or 11, 2019 in the event that his deposition is

3

needed.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 11, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3