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

Filing 27

Joint stipulation to continue mandatory scheduling conference and related dates and initial disclosure obligations; Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/14/2017. The Mandatory Scheduling Conference, which is currently scheduled for October 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED(Rosales, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Anna Y. Park, SBN 164242 Sue J. Noh, SBN 192134 Rumduol Vuong, SBN 264392 Derek W. Li, SBN 150122 Jennifer L. Boulton, SBN 259076 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 E-Mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 11 (Additional Attorneys on next page) 9 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) MARQUEZ BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL, ) INC., MARQUEZ BROTHERS ) ) ENTERPRISES, INC., ) MARQUEZ BROTHERS FOODS, INC., ) MARQUEZ BROTHERS SOUTHERN ) CALIFORNIA, INC., MARQUEZ ) BROTHERS NEVADA, INC., MARQUEZ ) BROTHERS TEXAS I, INC., AND DOES 1- ) ) 10, INCLUSIVE ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 27 28 -1- Case No.: 1:17-cv-00044-AWI-EPG JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES AND INITIAL DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS; ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Keith Jacoby, SBN 150233 Aurelio Perez, SBN 282135 Jose Macias, Jr., SBN 265033 Littler Mendelson, P.C. 2029 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310)772-7284 Facsimile: (310)553-5583 Email: kjacoby@littler.com Attorneys for Defendants Marquez Brothers International, Inc., Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc., Marquez Brothers Foods, Inc., Marquez Brothers Southern Cal., Inc., Marquez Brothers Nevada, Inc., and Marquez Brothers Texas I, Inc. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Defendants 2 Marquez Brothers International, Inc., Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc., Marquez Brothers 3 Foods, Inc., Marquez Brothers Southern California, Inc., Marquez Brothers Nevada, Inc., and 4 Marquez Brothers Texas I, Inc. (“Defendants”, collectively, the “Parties”) by and through their 5 counsel of record stipulate as follows to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, 6 currently scheduled for October 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.: 7 1. On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff EEOC filed its Complaint alleging Defendants 8 violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by engaging in unlawful 9 employment hiring practices based on race and by failing or refusing to make, preserve, and 10 produce the required records and reports. (Complaint, ECF No. 1). Before any of the 11 Defendants filed a response to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed on February 28, 2017 its First 12 Amended Complaint. (First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5). 13 2. On January 11, 2017, the Court issued its order setting the Mandatory 14 Scheduling Conference on April 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. (Sch. Conf. Order 1, ECF No. 1). The 15 Court also ordered the Parties to file a Joint Scheduling Report one full week prior to the 16 Scheduling Conference. (Id. at 3). The Court further ordered the Parties to hold a conference of 17 counsel at least twenty days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference. (Id.). 18 3. On April 19, 2017, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 19 Amended Complaint. (Defs. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17). All briefings have been completed. 20 The motion is pending before the Court. 21 4. Upon the Parties’ Stipulation for an Order to continue the Mandatory Scheduling 22 Order to account for the briefing schedule related to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court 23 continued the Mandatory Scheduling Conference from April 11, 2017 to October 2, 2017 at 24 9:00 a.m. with telephonic appearances granted. (3/30/17 Order 2, ECF No. 9). 25 5. The Parties believe that discovery, motions, the appropriate scope of initial 26 disclosures, trial-related deadlines, and other issues to be addressed prior to or at the Mandatory 27 Scheduling Conference cannot be readily resolved until Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is 28 resolved. On August 30, 2017, the Parties had their Rule 26 Meeting of Counsel and had -3- 1 difficulties determining the appropriate discovery deadlines to set without knowing the 2 resolution of Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss and the nature of Defendants’ Answer. In 3 their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants raise a number of arguments seeking both the dismissal of 4 a number of Defendants and, alternatively, to limit the scope of the action to Defendant 5 Marquez Brothers International, Inc.’s Hanford facility. The eventual resolution of Defendants’ 6 Motion will bear directly on the scope of remaining litigation and, accordingly, appropriate 7 deadlines for both non-expert and expert discovery, dispositive motions, and trial-related filings. 8 9 6. Therefore, the Parties stipulate to the proposed order set forth below to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to a date at least fourteen days after pleadings close (i.e. 10 all remaining Defendants have answered the operative complaint). This continuance would 11 allow the Parties to file a Joint Scheduling Report seven days before the Mandatory Scheduling 12 Conference with proposed deadlines taking into account up-to-date information as to the scope 13 of the litigation and the nature of the defenses and issues to be litigated. Thus, the resulting 14 Scheduling Order to be determined at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference would more 15 accurately reflect the nature of the litigation before the Court. 16 // 17 // 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 1 7. For the same reasons as described in the preceding paragraph, the Parties further 2 stipulate that the deadline for serving the initial disclosures shall also be fourteen days after the 3 deadline for the filing of the answer or answers to the operative complaint. 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 6 Dated: September __, 2017 Respectfully Submitted U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 7 8 Derek W. Li 9 By: Derek W. Li EEOC Trial Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC 10 11 12 Dated: September __, 2017 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Aurelio J. Perez BY: _____________________________ Keith Jacoby Aurelio Perez Attorneys for Defendants Marquez Brothers International, Inc., Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc., Marquez Brothers Foods, Inc., Marquez Brothers Southern Cal., Inc., Marquez Brothers Nevada, Inc., and Marquez Brothers Texas I, Inc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- ORDER 1 2 3 For good cause shown as stated by the Parties’ stipulation, the Court orders that: 1. The Mandatory Scheduling Conference, which is currently scheduled for October 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated and to be continued to a date to be scheduled later that is 4 at least fourteen days after the deadline for the filing of the answer or answers to the 5 operative complaint. Telephone appearances are granted to any party wishing to so 6 appear. To participate telephonically, each party is to use the following dial-in 7 numbers: Dial-in number 1-888-251-2909; Passcode 1024453. 8 9 2. The deadline for the service of the initial disclosures shall be fourteen days after the deadline for the filing of the answer or answers to the operative complaint. 10 11 3. Within five court days of the Court’s issuance of an order on the pending motion to dismiss, the Parties must file a stipulation setting forth proposed dates for the 12 Mandatory Scheduling Conference that are at least fourteen days after the pleadings 13 close. 14 15 4. The Parties shall file their Joint Scheduling Report one full week prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: September 14, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?