Young v. Cate

Filing 95

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/20/14 ORDERING that having read the above joint stipulation regarding discovery dispute, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the above stipulation regarding discovery dispute is adopted and all parties must comply with the stipulation as set forth above. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

JOAN A. MARKOFF
Chief Counsel, Bar No. 121787
FROLAN R. AGUILING
Deputy Chief Counsel, Bar No. 235874
JENNIFER M. GARTEN
Labor Relations Counsel, Bar No. 232979
DAVID D. KING
Labor Relations Counsel, Bar No. 252074
California Department of Human Resources
State of California
1515 S Street, North Building, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814-7243
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

11
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

RYAN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of )
those similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DR. JEFFREY BEARD, in his capacity as the )
Secretary of the California Department of
)
Corrections and Rehabilitation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-JFM
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
TO COMPEL; STIPULATION RE:
DISCOVERY DISPUTE; ORDER
Hearing Date:
Time:
Magistrate Judge:
Courtroom:

May 28, 2014
10:00 a.m.
Hon. Allison Claire
26, 8th Floor

[Local Rule 251]

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE defendant DR. JEFFREY BEARD, in his capacity as the Secretary

25

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, hereby withdraws the Notice of

26

Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery. Electronic Case Filing (ECF) 93. Accordingly,

27

defendant requests this Court remove from calendar the hearing on defendant’s motion to compel,

28

currently set for May 28, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., without prejudice.
-1Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order

1

Defendant’s withdrawal is made pursuant to the Stipulation Re: Discovery Dispute as set

2

forth below.

3

DATED: May 20, 2014

4

Respectfully submitted,

5

JOAN A. MARKOFF
Chief Counsel

6

FROLAN R. AGUILING
Deputy Chief Counsel

7
8
9

By:

10

/s/ Jennifer M. Garten
Jennifer M. Garten, Labor Relations Counsel
Department of Human Resources

11

Attorney for defendant Dr. Jeffrey Beard

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order

1
2
3

STIPULATION RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
WHEREAS, the above-entitled case is a collective action brought by eighty-six individuals
who have opted in to the action, alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

4

WHEREAS, the deadline to complete the second phase of discovery is June 18, 2014.

5

WHEREAS, on November 26, 2013, defendant propounded Set One of Requests for

6
7

Admissions (RFAs), upon twenty-two of the eighty-six plaintiffs who have opted in to the action.
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2013, defendant propounded Set One of Requests for

8

Production of Documents (RPDs) and Special Interrogatories (ROGs) upon the same twenty-two

9

plaintiffs who received defendant’s RFAs (Set One of defendant’s RFAs, ROGs and RPDs

10
11
12
13

hereinafter collectively referred to as “defendant’s discovery requests”).
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, and following grant of several extensions of discovery
deadlines, plaintiffs served responses to defendant’s discovery requests.
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, and following a period of meet and confer, plaintiffs served

14

supplemental discovery responses consisting of substantive responses to defendant’s discovery

15

requests for ten of the twenty-two plaintiffs, and objections from the remaining twelve plaintiffs

16

upon whom defendant’s discovery requests were made. Plaintiffs objected on the basis the ten

17

plaintiffs who provided substantive responses was a “meaningful representative sample of the opt-in

18

class for the purposes of discovery” and therefore defendant’s discovery requests to the remaining

19

twelve plaintiffs were “unduly repetitive and impose[d] an unjust burden on the responding parties.”

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2014, defendant noticed a motion to compel discovery responses,
setting a hearing for May 28, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, defendant served RFAs upon fifty-four additional opt-in
plaintiffs;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND
BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT:
1. Defendant hereby withdraws Set One of the RFAs defendant propounded upon the fiftyfour additional opt-in plaintiffs on May 13, 2014.
2. Defendant will and hereby does withdraw its Motion to Compel Further Discovery, and
-3Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order

1

requests the Court to remove from calendar the hearing currently set for May 28, 2014 at

2

10:00 a.m., without prejudice.

3

3. Defendant may conduct ten depositions in addition to the ten depositions permitted by

4

Rule 30(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5

4. Plaintiffs shall provide substantive responses to defendant’s discovery requests for three

6

of the twelve plaintiffs who had responded with only objections to defendant’s discovery

7

requests on April 21, 2014. In the event an opt-in plaintiff who had previously provided

8

substantive responses to defendant’s discovery requests communicates to defendant an

9

intent to opt out of the conditionally certified class, or is otherwise dismissed from the

10

action before the close of discovery, plaintiffs shall provide substantive responses to

11

defendant’s discovery requests from an additional plaintiff.

12

5. Plaintiffs agree that for purposes of any pre-trial dispositive motion proceeding,

13

including, but not limited to, a potential motion for decertification or summary judgment,

14

plaintiffs’ evidence used in support of plaintiffs’ position or argument shall be limited to

15

testimonial or documentary evidence obtained from the plaintiffs who will have provided

16

substantive responses to defendant’s discovery requests, or from the plaintiffs who will

17

have been deposed by defendant, by the close of discovery. This provision does not

18

prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to seek or use discovery obtained from defendant in support

19

of plaintiffs’ position or argument in said pre-trial dispositive motion proceeding.

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-4Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order

1

SO STIPULATED:

2

DATED: May 20, 2014

3

/s/ Vincent D. Howard, Esquire
(as authorized on May 16, 2014)
Vincent D. Howard
Gregory H.D. Alumit
HOWARD LAW, PC

4
5
6

/s/ Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esquire
(as authorized on May 16, 2014)
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr.
WILLIAMSON LAW FIRM, LLC

7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff Young and Class

10
11
12

DATED: May 20, 2014
/s/ Jennifer M. Garten
Jennifer M. Garten, Labor Relations Counsel
Department of Human Resources

13
14

Attorney for defendant Dr. Jeffrey Beard

15
16
17

ORDER

18
19
20
21
22

Having read the above joint stipulation regarding discovery dispute, and good cause
appearing, it is hereby ordered that the above stipulation regarding discovery dispute is adopted and
all parties must comply with the stipulation as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

DATED: May 20, 2014

25
26
27
28
-5Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order