Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC

Filing 93

ORDER granting 64 Motion to Deny Consolidation, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/2012. (tsf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC

SECTION: "A" (3)

ORDER
The Court has considered the parties’ arguments with respect to
the issue of consolidation and concludes that the David and EEOC
cases will not be consolidated at this time.
The Court has already decided that the discrimination claims
against Signal will be tried separately in the EEOC case.

(Rec. Doc.

Thus, the minimal overlap that the David and EEOC cases share

78).

is going to be eliminated.

Because both the David and EEOC cases

will always be pending on the same district judge’s docket, formal
consolidation is not necessary to ensure that all common legal
questions are tried together, or to minimize the occurrences of
having to present evidence more than once.

The EEOC case is

statutorily entitled to expedited consideration,1 and the Court is
convinced that consolidation with the larger and older David matter
will only serve to hinder the parties’ efforts to comply with the
statutory mandate.
Defendants’ arguments so vehemently in favor of consolidation

1

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this
subsection to assign the case for hearing at the earliest
practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way
expedited.
If such judge has not scheduled the case for
trial within one hundred and twenty days after issue has been
joined, that judge may appoint a master pursuant to rule 53
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
42 U.S.C. A. § 2000e-5(f)(5) (West 2003 & Supp. 2011).

suggest that they fail to recognize that consolidation does not alter
the parties’ substantive rights.

Thus, contrary to the position that

Signal takes, consolidation has no effect on whether the David
decision base applies in the EEOC matter–-the law governing
preclusion will determine that regardless of whether the cases are
consolidated.

Nor is consolidation necessary in order to avoid

repetitive and possibly conflicting legal determinations because the
David and EEOC cases will always be pending before the same district
judge from this point forward.

And because the David and EEOC cases

are pending before the same district judge and the same magistrate
judge, the parties will be compelled to engage in a coordinated
discovery process, again regardless of whether or not the cases are
consolidated.

All parties recognize the need to conduct discovery

efficiently.
In short, consolidation solves none of the concerns that Signal
raises, and it could only lead to inadvertent delay of both the David
and EEOC cases.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Deny Consolidation (Rec. Doc.
64) filed by the EEOC is GRANTED.
April 2, 2012

_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2