U.S. EEOC v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc. et al
Filing
20
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/27/2021 GRANTING the parties until 5/17/2021 to file a Discovery Plain in accordance with L.R. 240(b) and to exchange Initial Disclosures. (Coll, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
12
ELIZABETH ZARAH, Esq., SBN#: 182871 (CA)
ZAREH & ASSOCIATES
75 Broadway, Suite 202
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone No. (415) 830-3031
Facsimile No. (415) 830-3031
elizabeth@zarehassociates.com
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
DIANE AQUI, SBN 217087 (CA)
SMITH DOLLAR PC
418 B Street, Fourth Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Telephone No. (707) 522-1100
Fax No. (707) 522-1101
daqui@smithdollar.com
Attorneys for Defendants
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
22
23
24
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
25
26
27
Plaintiff,
and
Case No.: 2:20-CV-02245-MCE-KJN
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO SUBMIT
DISCOVERY PLAN AND TO MODIFY
RULE 26(F) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
ARYAN RAHIMI,
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SUBMIT DISCOVERY PLAN
AND TO MODIFY RULE 26(F) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
1
Case No.: 2:20-CV-02245-MCE-KJN
Plaintiff-Intervenor
1
2
3
4
vs.
CAPPO MANAGEMENT XXIX, INC., d/b/a
HARROLD FORD, and VICTORY
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.
5
Defendants.
6
7
Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Plaintiff-Intervenor
8
Aryan Rahimi (“Rahimi”) and Defendants Cappo Management XXIX, Inc. and Victory Automotive
9
Group, Inc. submit the following stipulation and request that the Court 1) extend the deadline for the
10
parties to submit a Discover Plan pursuant to Local Rule (L.R.) 240(b), 2) extend the deadline for the
11
parties to make Initial Disclosures, and 3) order that the parties may make Initial Disclosures in
12
accordance with the Northern District of California’s General Order No. 71 (Initial Discovery
13
Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action):
14
15
16
1.
On April 1, 2021, the EEOC and Defendants completed their previously scheduled
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference.
2.
Pursuant L.R. 240(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), respectively, the EEOC and
17
Defendants must submit their proposed discovery plan and provide Initial Disclosures within
18
fourteen days after the conference, in this case, by April 15.
19
3.
The EEOC and Defendants continue to meet and confer concerning discovery,
20
including the collection of Electronically Stored Information and the format of document
21
productions.
22
23
24
25
26
27
4.
On April 4, Rahimi filed her Complaint in Intervention (ECF No. 16), following the
Court granting her Motion to Intervene on April 1 (ECF No. 15).
5.
Plaintiff-Intervenor and Defendants have not yet completed their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
Conference.
6.
In the interest of efficiency, the parties seek additional time to prepare and to submit a
single discovery plan, and to make Initial Disclosures after they have negotiated the collection and
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SUBMIT DISCOVERY PLAN
AND TO MODIFY RULE 26(F) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
2
Case No.: 2:20-CV-02245-MCE-KJN
1
2
production format of discovery.
7.
To promote earlier disclosures of information that may facilitate a potentially prompt
3
resolution of this lawsuit, the parties also seek the Court’s permission to make Initial Disclosures in
4
accordance with the Northern District of California’s General Order No. 71 (Initial Discovery
5
Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action) (Exhibit A) instead of Rule 26(a)(1).
6
General Order No. 71, which was prepared by highly experienced employment lawyers, is intended
7
to focus disclosures “on the type of information most likely to be useful in narrowing the issues for
8
employment discrimination cases.” Id. at *1-2. By its terms, General Order 71 supersedes parties’
9
disclosure obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) for certain employment cases. Id. at *1.
10
8.
Therefore, the parties seek to set as May 17, 2021, the deadline both for the parties to
11
file a Discovery Plan in accordance with L.R. 240(b), and to exchange Initial Disclosures in
12
accordance with General Order No. 71.
13
9.
No other discovery deadlines will be affected by this extension.
14
10.
The only prior extension or modification of the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order that
15
the parties have sought from the Court was an extension of the deadline for the EEOC and
16
Defendants to complete their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference. (ECF No. 14).
17
18
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: April 15, 2021
/s/ Marcia L. Mitchell
Marcia L. Mitchell
EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated: Authorized on April 15, 2021
/s/ Elizabeth Zareh
Elizabeth Zarah
Zareh and Associates
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
Dated: Authorized on April 15, 2021
/s/ Diane Aqui
Diane Aqui
Partner
Smith Dollar PC
Attorneys for Defendants
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SUBMIT DISCOVERY PLAN
AND TO MODIFY RULE 26(F) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
3
Case No.: 2:20-CV-02245-MCE-KJN
1
ORDER
2
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
3
May 17, 2021, shall be the deadline for all parties to:
4
(1)
File a Discovery Plan in accordance with L.R. 240(b);
5
(2)
Exchange Initial Disclosures, which shall be made in accordance with Northern
6
District of California’s General Order No. 71 (Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases
7
Alleging Adverse Action).
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2021
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO SUBMIT DISCOVERY PLAN
AND TO MODIFY RULE 26(F) INITIAL DISCLOSURES
4
Case No.: 2:20-CV-02245-MCE-KJN
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?