Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC

Filing 198

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 192 Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/3/2013. (tsf) (NEF: Mag Jdg Knowles)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KURIAN DAVID, et al.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal
International (Civil Action No. 12-557) (“EEOC”)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”)
“Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation.”1 Plaintiff-intervenors support the EEOC’s
motion.2 Defendant Signal International, LLC (“Signal”) opposes the EEOC’s motion.3 For
the reasons set forth below, the EEOC’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
One of the EEOC’s specific prayers for relief in its motion is for an order directing

1

R. Doc. 192.

2

R. Doc. 193.

3

R. Doc. 195.

1

Signal to file an answer to the EEOC’s amended complaint within ten days.4 In response,
Signal explains that it will file its answer “on or before June 3, 2013.”5 Accordingly, to the
extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order directing Signal to answer the EEOC’s amended
complaint within a certain time frame, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and hereby
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal shall filed an answer to the EEOC’s
amended complaint on or before June 3, 2013.
The Court now turns to the EEOC’s general prayer that the Court “immediately
release [the EEOC matter] from any affiliation with David [v. Signal International, LLC,
Civil Action No. 08-1220], and allow [the EEOC] to proceed with Phase I discovery and
litigation,” and the following specific prayers: (1) that the Court order Signal to produce the
identity of the persons and entities identified in interrogatories propounded on Signal by
the EEOC;6 (2) that the Court authorize the EEOC’s issuance of Third-Party Subpoenas; (3)
that the Court order the parties to participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference and file a Joint
Case Management Order, and to exchange Initial Disclosures no later than 14 days after the
Rule 26(f) Conference; and (4) that the Court order that the parties file a Joint Protective
Order governing the handling of confidential information.
Judge Zainey denied Signal’s motion to consolidate the EEOC case and the David
case while this case was pending before Section “A” of this Court.7 As a result, while the

4

See R. Doc. 153.

5

R. Doc. 195 at p. 2.

6

See R. Doc. 192-3.

7

R. Doc. 93.

2

cases are clearly related, they are not formally consolidated. It is not clear that the EEOC
is referring to when it references “affiliation” of this case with the David case. Affiliation
is not a term in the Federal Rules, and there is no order in the record affiliating the two
cases. Instead, they are “related cases,” and that is how they are designated in the caption.
Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order “releasing its lawsuit from any
affiliation with David,” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is
DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court agrees with the EEOC, however, that the EEOC should be allowed to
proceed with discovery in its case against Signal in an effort to move the case towards a final
resolution. Despite Signal’s arguments to the contrary, there is no valid reason why the
EEOC case should not move forward, and, to accomplish this goal, Signal must engage in
meaningful discovery with the EEOC and plaintiff-intervenors.
Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order allowing the EEOC to
proceed with discovery, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks (1) an order directing Signal to
produce to the EEOC, no later than fifteen (15) days after the entry of this Order, the
identity of the persons and entities identified in the interrogatories propounded on Signal
by the EEOC; (2) an order authorizing EEOC's issuance of Third-Party Subpoenas,
effective immediately; (3) an order directing the parties to participate in a Rule 26(f)
Conference no later than twenty (20) days after the entry of this Order and to exchange
Initial Disclosures no later than fourteen (14) days after the Rule 26(f) Conference; and
(4) an order directing the parties to file a Joint Protective Order, or separate proposals if
3

no agreement can be reached, governing the handling of confidential information no later
than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
the EEOC’s motion be and hereby is GRANTED.
Finally, the EEOC’s request for an order requiring the parties to develop and submit
a joint case management order is contingent in part upon the Court’s resolution of the
EEOC’s pending motion to bifurcate the trial of this matter.8 Accordingly, to the extent the
EEOC’s motion seeks an order requiring the parties to file a joint case management order,
the EEOC’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will deal with the
case management order issue in the context of the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate.

3rd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of June, 2013.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court to Notify:
Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles

8

See R. Doc. 141.

4