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)
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?