Mano v. Rolfe

Filing 20

STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/1/16. (Kastilahn, A)

5

Galen T. Shimoda (Cal. State Bar No. 226752)
Justin P. Rodriguez (Cal. State Bar No. 278275)
Shimoda Law Corp.
9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: [phone];
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff PEACE MANO

1
2
3
4

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PEACE MANO,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

vs.
MARSHA A. ROLFE, a sole proprietor,
d/b/a END ZONE BAR AND GRILL; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.

17
18

Defendants.

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-CV-02919-JAM-CMK
STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER

20
21

This Stipulated Discovery Order (“Order”) is entered into by Plaintiff Peace Mano

22

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Marsha A. Rolfe d/b/a End Zone Bar and Grill (“Defendant”) (Plaintiff

23

and Defendant sometimes collectively referred to as “Parties”), by and through their counsel of

24

record, on the basis of the following facts:

25
26
27
28

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served discovery requests to Defendant for production of documents
on October 14, 2015, relating to her claims under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”);
WHEREAS, Defendant had raised objections to certain document and information requests
regarding individuals Plaintiff contends are within the scope of her alleged PAGA claims; and

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] DISCOVERY ORDER

2:14-CV-02919-JAM-CMK

1

1

WHEREAS, after meeting and conferring further on the objections, Defendant has agreed to

2

produce all requested documents with her possession, custody or control, and waive objections as to

3

whether they are discoverable, but retains the right to object to their admissibility otherwise;

4
5
6
7

WHEREAS, Defendant has not produced all documents responsive to the discovery requests
as of January 26, 2016, while representing she intends to do so;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel that is set to be heard on February 3,
2016 to secure the documents in a timely manner before the discovery cutoff of February 19, 2016;

8

WHEREAS, the Parties have conferred further regarding the production of documents and

9

remedy for Plaintiff for Defendant’s non-compliance with its discovery production obligations in

10
11
12
13

lieu of a hearing on the filed motion to compel;
WHEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the
following discovery order:
1.

Defendant shall produce all documents requested in Plaintiff’s Request for

14

Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1-10, which are within her possession, custody or control

15

as of Defendant’s January 22, 2016 payroll period, no later than February 5, 2016. For any

16

documents created between January 22, 2016 through February 19, 2016, Defendant shall produce

17

those documents by February 26, 2016.

18

2.

Defendant is deemed to have waived all discovery objections to Plaintiff’s Request

19

for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1-10. However, Defendant shall retain the ability to

20

object to the admissibility of the requested documents otherwise in this matter.

21

3.

If Defendant fails to produce all responsive documents by the February 5, 2016 date

22

and/or February 26, 2016, as set forth in Paragraph 1 respectively, Defendant shall be subject to a

23

sanction in the amount of $100.00 per calendar day for each day that they are not produced. This

24

sanction shall continue until the documents are produced, up to, and including, the time of trial.

25

The responses shall be considered produced on the day they are mailed for purposes of compliance

26

with this Order.

27

4.

28

If Defendant fails to produce any documents as set forth in Paragraph 1, it agrees to

an adverse inference instruction. For those documents that contain payroll records of Defendants

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] DISCOVERY ORDER

2:14-CV-02919-JAM-CMK

2

1

such as time cards and pay history, the adverse inference shall be that the documents not produced

2

will be considered to have a minimum of the same violations, if any, in terms of type, frequency,

3

and duration as those documents that have been produced.

4

5.

The parties agree that the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorney’s

5

fees and costs incurred in the event that Plaintiff attempts to enforce this Order or the sanctions

6

authorized herein.

7

6.

8

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute concerning the use of

information disclosed hereunder.

9
10

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

11
12

Dated: January 26, 2016

Shimoda Law Corp.

13
14
By:

15
16

/s/ Galen T. Shimoda
Galen Shimoda, Esq.,
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

17
18

Dated: January 26, 2016

Wells, Small, Fleharty & Weil

19
20
By:

21
22

/s/ Mark Vegh
Mark Vegh, Esq.
(As authorized on 1/26/16)
Attorney for Defendant

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED:

25
26

Dated: February 1, 2016

27
28

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] DISCOVERY ORDER

2:14-CV-02919-JAM-CMK

3