U.S. EEOC v. Packaging Corp. of America

Filing 24

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/28/2021 SETTING the deadline for completion of Expert Discovery to 9/14/2022. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
6 ROBERTA L. STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA) JAMES H. BAKER, SBN 291836 (CA) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0950 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 james.baker@eeoc.gov 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DOUGLAS M. EGBERT (SBN 265062) CHRISTOPHER J. TRUXLER (SBN 282354) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone No. (916) 341-0404 Fax No. (916) 341-0141 douglas.egbert@jacksonlewis.com christopher.truxler@jacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants Schwarz Partners, LP And Packaging Corporation of America Central California Corrugated, LLC. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 20 21 Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 2:20-cv-01948-MCE-CKD JOINT RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY PLAN; ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCOVERY 22 23 24 25 26 PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CORRUGATED, LLC, and SCHWARZ PARTNERS, LP, Defendants. Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Defendants 27 Packaging Corporation of America Central California Corrugated, LLC (PCACCC) and Schwarz 28 Partners, LP (Schwarz) (collectively, Defendants), submit this Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan & JT RULE 26(f) DSC PLAN & ORDER 1 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01948-MCE 1 [Proposed] Order pursuant to the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order (ECF 3). 2 I. 3 DISCOVERY PLAN A. 4 5 6 7 In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), the EEOC and Defendants intend to, and stipulate to exchanging Initial Disclosures on May 10, 2021. B. 8 9 What changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made. The subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues. The parties do not believe discovery should be conducted in phases. Without waiving any 10 rights to challenge discoverability, admissibility, or otherwise, the Parties anticipate that discovery 11 will be on those subjects related to Plaintiff’s claims and damages, and Defendants’ defenses, 12 including, but are not limited to the following: 13 Plaintiff 14 1. 15 Allegations/reports of racial harassment at Defendants’ facility located in McClellan, California (McClellan Facility), and Defendants’ responses to same; 16 2. The relevant personnel records of employees, managers and Human 17 Resources personnel involved in reports or investigations of racial harassment at the McClellan 18 Facility; 19 3. The training Defendants provided to their employees, including Human 20 Resources personnel and managers regarding Equal Employment Opportunity laws and policies, and 21 training, guidance or directives related to Title VII; 22 4. The corporate relationship between Defendants; 23 5. Charging Parties’ damages; and 24 6. Relevant company policies, including HR and EEO policies. 25 Defendants 26 1. 27 28 The Charging Parties’ communications with others regarding their employment and the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint (FAC); and 2. JT RULE 26(f) DSC PLAN & ORDER Charging Parties’ medical and employment records, both prior to and after the 2 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01948-MCE 1 facts alleged in the FAC. 2 3 Discovery Scheduling The Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF 3) sets forth the deadlines for the parties 4 to complete discovery and expert discovery, and to file dispositive motions. The parties calculate 5 those deadlines as follows: 6 EVENT 7 DEADLINE Deadline to complete non-expert discovery Deadline for expert witness disclosures Deadline for rebuttal expert witness disclosures Joint Trial Readiness Report (if no dispositive motions are filed) Dispositive Motions 8 9 10 11 12 April 1, 2022 May 31, 2022 June 30, 2022 August 1, 2022 September 28, 2022 13 14 In addition, the Parties propose that the Court set September 14, 2022, as the deadline for 15 the parties to complete expert discovery. Good cause exists for doing so because 1) the Initial 16 Scheduling Order does not currently address this deadline, 2) the proposed deadline will not affect 17 any other deadlines in the case, and 3) this proposed deadline will encourage the Parties to complete 18 all expert discovery before dispositive motions, thus avoiding the potential for expert discovery to 19 disrupt the dispositive motion briefing schedule. 20 C. Any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced. 21 22 23 1. Preservation of ESI The parties met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and 24 proportionate steps taken to preserve potentially relevant ESI. The Parties continue to explore the 25 existence of custodians and systems containing ESI. Plaintiff has proposed that the parties enter into 26 an ESI Stipulation and Order. The parties will continue these discussions. 27 28 2. Discovery and Form of Production The parties will conduct, serve, and respond to discovery in accordance with the Federal JT RULE 26(f) DSC PLAN & ORDER 3 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01948-MCE 1 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. Discussions relating to what search and review 2 methodology each party will employ for potentially relevant ESI are ongoing. The EEOC provided 3 Defendants with its written specifications to produce discovery in accordance with industry 4 standards for the Relativity platform. The parties are meeting and conferring concerning the form of 5 Defendants’ production, and to the nature and extent of the E-discovery to be completed ahead of 6 ADR. 7 D. 8 9 10 1. 11 12 Any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including – if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production – whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502. Preservation of ESI The parties agree and stipulate that the following categories of documents shall be excluded from privilege logs: 13 Attorney-client privilege: 14 (a) 15 Communications between Defendants’ in-house or outside counsel (or among them) that post-date the filing of the Complaint; 16 (b) Communications between Defendants’ in-house or outside counsel 17 (and Defendants’ management personnel) that post-date the filing of 18 Mr. Calloway’s Charge of Discrimination (which includes 19 communications in reference to Mr. Damon Douglas or Mr. Lyles that 20 post-date Mr. Calloway’s Charge); 21 (c) 22 Communications between EEOC employees and Mr. Calloway, Mr. Lyles or Mr. Damon Douglas after September 28, 2019; and 23 (d) Communications between or amongst EEOC enforcement (i.e. 24 investigation) staff and EEOC legal staff that post-date the filing of 25 Mr. Calloway’s Charge of Discrimination (which includes 26 communications in reference to Mr. Douglas or Mr. Lyles that post- 27 date Mr. Calloway’s Charge). 28 /// JT RULE 26(f) DSC PLAN & ORDER 4 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01948-MCE 1 Attorney work product: 2 (a) Documents created by Defendants’ outside or in-house counsel that post-date the filing of Mr. Calloway’s Charge of Discrimination; and 3 4 (b) Documents created by EEOC attorneys that post-date the filing of 5 Mr. Calloway’s Charge of Discrimination (which includes documents 6 created in reference to Mr. Lyles or Mr. Douglas that post-date 7 Mr. Calloway’s Charge). 8 9 2. Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) Inadvertent Productions The parties are meeting and conferring regarding a Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) Stipulation and 10 Order and the treatment of inadvertently produced documents. In accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 11 502(d), the parties do stipulate that the production of privileged or work-product protected 12 documents or electronically stored information, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of 13 the privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. 14 The parties further agree that this stipulation shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection 15 allowed by Fed. R. Evid. 502(d). 16 E. 17 18 What changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed. The parties agree that it would be beneficial to engage in early ADR through private 19 mediation after targeted discovery. The parties agree to limit discovery to written discovery until the 20 completion of ADR and agree that each party shall serve no more than 35 separate requests for 21 production of documents prior to completing ADR. The parties do not currently anticipate seeking 22 other discovery limitations. The parties agree to meet and confer, and attempt to achieve a joint 23 resolution, regarding all discovery disputes before seeking judicial intervention. 24 25 26 27 28 The parties continue to meet and confer concerning the collection and format of ESI produced in discovery. There are no current discovery disputes. F. Any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c). None at this time. JT RULE 26(f) DSC PLAN & ORDER 5 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01948-MCE 1 II. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 2 The parties are willing to participate in private mediation following limited and tailored 3 discovery, the scope and nature of which is being negotiated. The parties anticipate completing 4 ADR by September 30, 2021. 5 [PROPOSED] ORDER 6 Therefore, the Parties hereby stipulate to and request that the Court order the following relief: 7 1. 8 Respectfully Submitted, The deadline to complete expert discovery shall be September 14, 2022. 9 Dated: April 22, 2021 /s/ James H. Baker James H. Baker Trial Attorney U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: Authorized on April 22, 2021 /s/ Douglas Egbert Douglas Egbert Partner JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Attorneys for Defendants 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER In accordance with the foregoing stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing, the deadline for completion of expert discovery shall be September 14, 2022. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2021 23 24 25 26 27 28 JT RULE 26(f) DSC PLAN & ORDER 6 Case No.: 2:20-CV-01948-MCE

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?