U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. John Muir Health

Filing 23

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL CALENDAR AND LEAVE TO EXCEED THE LIMIT ON DEPOSITIONS re 22 Stipulation filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/7/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, SBN 084965 JONATHAN T. PECK, #12303 (VA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL #18122 (WA) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 Telephone No. [phone] Fax No. [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-02634 PJH STIPULATED REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND TRIAL CALENDAR AND FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE LIMIT ON DEPOSITIONS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOHN MUIR HEALTH, Defendant.

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and Defendant John Muir Health hereby jointly request that this Court issue an Order continuing the discovery deadlines and trial calendar for this case for not less than 120 days. The parties also request leave of court to exceed the limit on the number of depositions they can take. Continuance of Discovery and Trial Deadlines Pursuant to this Court's order of September 15, 2008 (see Docket No. 17), the Parties attended a mediation before court-appointed mediator, Brad Seligman on May 5, 2009 (the mediation was originally set for March 20, 2009 but was continued at the request of the mediator). Prior to the mediation, the parties diligently engaged in targeted discovery including the exchange of initial disclosures, written discovery and seven depositions in an effort to gather sufficient information to have fruitful and good faith settlement discussions. The parties agreed to limit the
Stipulated Request for Continuance of Deadlines Civ. No. 08-02634 PJH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

depositions prior to the mediation to those they deemed critical to the settlement discussions in order to minimize the costs in both time and in money in an effort to enhance the possibility of settlement. Despite good faith efforts on both sides, the parties' efforts to settle the case were not successful.

At this point, the parties have identified nearly 30 additional witnesses who will need to be deposed and whose transcripts will need to be available for review by their experts. The expert witness disclosure deadline is currently September 1, 2009. The parties recognize that it will be extremely challenging to coordinate their schedules with the schedules of witnesses prior to the deadline. Moreover, meeting the current deadline will impose an undue burden on the parties' respective expert witnesses. Neither the EEOC nor John Muir has sought to delay this case. To the contrary, both parties have made every effort to exchange discovery and calendar depositions in a timely and cost efficient manner. Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that all deadlines in the current scheduling order be extended by 120 days, as set forth in the proposed order. Depositions The parties also seek an order pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b)(2) permitting each party to take more than ten depositions. The EEOC filed this case pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging that Defendant had failed to hire several applicants in violation of the statute. Through the EEOC's administrative investigation and Defendant's responses to interrogatories, there are currently ten potential claimants for this case: Defendant needs to depose each of the claimants and their treating physicians. In addition, Defendant has identified 20 percipient witnesses through its Initial Disclosures and Interrogatory responses: the EEOC needs to depose each of these witnesses in addition to those witnesses produced by Defendant for a Rule 30(b)(6) examination. In light of the above, the parties believe they have a good faith basis for seeking leave of court to exceed the limitation on depositions and ask for the court to allow the parties to depose all witnesses named as /// ///
Stipulated Request for Continuance of Deadlines Civ. No. 08-02634 PJH

2.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"persons with knowledge" in the Initial Disclosures or in discovery responses and reasonable followup witnesses, if any. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: July 2, 2009 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION By: /s/ Marcia L. Mitchell MARCIA L. MITCHELL Attorney for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Dated: July 2, 2009

MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT, LLP By: /s/ Adam L. Johnson DAVID M. LESTER ADAM L. JOHNSON Attorneys for Defendant JOHN MUIR HEALTH

E-filing concurrence: I, Marcia L. Mitchell, attorney for Plaintiff EEOC, attest that I have obtained the concurrence of Adam Johnson and David Lester, attorneys for defendant John Muir Health, for the filing of the instant pleading. Dated: July 2, 2009

/S/ Marcia L. Mitchell MARCIA L. MITCHELL Senior Trial Attorney

Stipulated Request for Continuance of Deadlines Civ. No. 08-02634 PJH

3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Stipulated Request for Continuance of Deadlines Civ. No. 08-02634 PJH

PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown and pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties it is hereby ordered that all discovery deadlines and the trial date shall be continued for 120 days. It is further ordered that the parties' request for leave of court to exceed the limit on depositions is granted. The parties are entitled to depose those witnesses identified in Initial

Disclosures and/or discovery responses as "persons with knowledge" of facts related to the litigation and reasonable follow-up witnesses, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7/7/09

____________________________________

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

United States District Court Judge

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

A

C

4.

LI

FO

hylli Judge P

s J. Ham

ilton

R NIA

ORD PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON IS SO IT
NO

ERED

RT U O

RT

H