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)

Download PDF
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

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?