Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Performance Food Group, Inc. et al

Filing 159

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling Plaintiff EEOC's 158 Objections to the Magistrate's Order dated 4/7/16; and directing parties to proceed in compliance with the Magistrate Judge's Order 157 . Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 4/21/2016. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Petitioner

*

vs.

*

PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.

*

Respondent
*

*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-1712

*
*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO ORDER
The Court has before it Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's Objections to the Magistrate's Order Dated April 7,1
2016 [ECF No. 158] and the materials submitted relating thereto.

The

Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
"the district judge in the case must consider timely objections [to
a Magistrate Judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter] and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or is contrary to law."
non-dispositive motions.

Discovery motions are quintessential
Moreover, the district court should,

normally, give great deference to the judgment calls made by a
Magistrate Judge in the course of resolving discovery disputes.

1

The Court notes that the Letter Order was dated April 6 and filed
that same day, but was not entered on the docket until April 7.

On April 4,2 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the
EEOC") filed a letter [ECF No. 156] seeking to have the Magistrate
Judge impose sanctions and/or issue an Order regarding various
discovery disputes, referring to a list of 16 matters.

By the Letter

Order at issue [ECF No. 157], the Magistrate Judge directed the
parties to hold a Local Rule 104.7 conference, stating:
To foster the cooperation necessary to
fairly and efficiently complete discovery, I
hereby direct the parties to hold a Local Rule
104.7 conference by Wednesday, April 20, 2016
in order
to:
1. Determine what production and/or
certification remains outstanding;
2. Set a schedule for the production of
any outstanding materials.
I am hopeful that the parties' conference
will limit—if not preclude—the need for
subsequent judicial intervention in the
discovery process. Recognizing, however, that
legitimate disputes may arise, the parties are
instructed to adhere to my informal procedure
(ECF No. 98), which requires the parties to
confer before bringing any disputes to the
court's attention.
The notice to the court
should be filed jointly. The court will decide
whether the matter can be resolved through
informal briefing and, if not, will direct that
the parties prepare full briefing consistent
with Local Rule 104.8 (regarding Motions to
Compel).
ECF No. 157 at 2.

2

All dates referred to herein are in the year 2016.
2

On April 18, the EEOC filed the instant Objections.

Therein,

the EEOC does not state that there has been compliance with the
Magistrate Judge's Order to conduct a Rule 104.7 conference but
states it "will inform the Court if any issues are mooted as a result
of [the required] conference."

ECF No. 158 at 2 n.6.

Presumably,

a Rule 104.7 conference is contemplated.
The Court views the instant "objections" to amount to (1) an
objection to the Magistrate Judge's requiring a Rule 104.7 conference
and (2) the Magistrate Judge's denial of the request to issue
sanctions and orders.
The Court finds the action of the Magistrate Judge in requiring
a Rule 104.7 conference prior to addressing the range of issues the
EEOC seeks to present a reasonable action to seek to manage the
discovery phase of the instant case.
Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff EEOC's Objections to the Magistrate's
Order Dated April 7, 2016 [ECF No. 158] are overruled.

2.

The parties shall proceed in compliance with the
Magistrate Judge's Letter Order [ECF No. 157].

SO ORDERED, this Thursday, April 21, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3