Barnes et al v. The Hershey Company

Filing 201

ORDER Re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs' Objections by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying without prejudice 150 Motion for Summary Judgment; denied as moot 195 Motion for Leave to File Response. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. 3:12-cv-01334-CRB

GREGORY P. BARNES, ET AL.,

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND LEAVE TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’
OBJECTIONS

v.
THE HERSHEY COMPANY,
Defendant.

/

11
12

Now before the Court is Defendant The Hershey Company’s (“Hershey”) motion for partial

13

summary judgment in an age discrimination suit. Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows

14

by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its

15

opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain

16

affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

56(d). Here, the Malloy Declaration (dkt. 177) and the record before the Court meet the

18

requirements of Rule 56(d).

19

On September 5, 2014, two days after Plaintiffs filed their opposition (dkt. 176) to the

20

present motion, Magistrate Judge Cousins issued an order resolving discovery disputes between the

21

parties. Discovery Order (dkt. 182).

22

produce a corporate designee for deposition on topics concerning “realignments, restructurings,

23

reorganizations, or reductions in force that affected the CSE or CDM position between 2009 and

24

2013” and “plans or goals to sever CSEs and CDMs in 2009 through 2011.” Discovery Order at 3-

25

4, 6. The order further compels Hershey to answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatories numbers 11 and 12, see

26

Sixth Discovery Brief (dkt. 165 at 2), and to produce requested documents numbers 15 and 17, see

27

id., regarding realignments, restructurings, or reorganizations, and personnel files. Discovery Order

28

at 7-10. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer on additional discovery matters and to

Magistrate Judge Cousins’ order compels Hershey to

1
2

submit further discovery letter briefs. See generally id.; see also Status Report (dkt. 194).
The discovery sought was held to be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

3

admissible evidence as to whether Hershey engaged in group termination[,]” which is a central

4

question at issue in Hershey’s motion for summary judgment. Id. The discovery process should

5

therefore proceed in line with Judge Cousins’ order before a fair determination of the issues raised at

6

the summary judgment stage is made.

7

Therefore, the hearing on the motion scheduled for October 17, 2014 is VACATED and the

8

motion is DENIED without prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ objections to Hershey’s reply

9

evidence (dkt. 193) and Hershey’s motion for leave to respond (dkt. 195) are DENIED AS MOOT.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

6
Dated: October __, 2014

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2