Martinez v. Cargill Meat Solutions
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - In accordance with discussion following a telephonic conference today to discuss the current status and future progression of this case: By agreement of the defendant, conditional class certification is granted in Haferland, et . al. v. Cargill, 8:09CV00247. Plaintiff Martinez' motion to restrict, (4:09CV3079, filing no. 63 ), and his unopposed motion for approval of notice and opt-in consent form, (4:09CV3079, filing no. 69 ), are granted. Plaintiff Martinez' motion for hearing, (4:09CV3079, filing no. 65 ), is denied. On or before March 17, 2010, the parties shall confer to develop a joint stipulation for setting progression deadlines in this case. Member Cases: 4:09-cv-03079-RGK-CRZ, 8:09-cv-00247-RGK-CRZOrdered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA J U A N MARTINEZ, on behalf of th e m se lv e s and all others similarly s itu a te d , Plaintiff, V. C A R G IL L MEAT SOLUTIONS, C o rp o ra tio n , Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
4 :0 9 C V 3 0 7 9
M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER
D A L E HAFERLAND, on behalf of ) th e m se lv e s and all other similarly ) s itu a te d individuals, JUAN MUNOZ, on ) b e h a lf of themselves and all other ) s im ila rly situated individuals, KARLA ) V E L A S Q U E Z , on behalf of themselves ) a n d all other similarly situated ) in d iv id u a ls , and MANUE CORONA, on ) b eh alf of themselves and all other ) s im ila rly situated individuals, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) ) C A R G IL L MEAT SOLUTIONS, Corp., ) ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D e f en d a n t. ____ ) __________________________________ )
A telephonic conference was held today to discuss the current status and future p ro g re ss io n of this case. In accordance with the parties' discussion:
B y agreement of the defendant, conditional class certification is granted in H a f erla n d , et. al. v. Cargill, 8:09CV00247, with the conditional class defined to include: A ll current and former non-exempt hourly employees who have b e e n employed at any time by Defendant at its Schuyler, NE f a cility during the time period from April 20, 2006 to the p rese n t, who were compensated on a gang time system and wore o r used personal protective equipment.
P lain tiff Martinez' motion to restrict, (4:09CV3079, filing no. 63), and his u n o p p o s e d motion for approval of notice and opt-in consent form, (4 :0 9 C V 3 0 7 9 , filing no. 69), are granted. Plaintiff Martinez' motion for h e a rin g , (4:09CV3079, filing no. 65), is denied. P l a in tif f Martinez' counsel shall mail an English and Spanish version of the c o u rt-a p p ro v e d opt-in consent form to putative plaintiffs who have not p re v io u s ly completed an opt-in form to join this case. As to those plaintiffs w h o have already signed forms to opt into either the Martinez or Haferland c a se , notices need not be re-sent and opting in again using the court-approved c o n s e n t form is unnecessary. T h e deadline for opting into this case is April 22, 2010. Putative plaintiffs w h o have not consented to opt-in by April 22, 2010 will not be included in the c o n d i tio n a l class. T h e deadline for responding to written discovery served on the defendant by H a f e rla n d is extended by thirty days. O n or before March 12, 2010, counsel for Martinez and Haferland shall confer to discuss how discovery and case progression can be coordinated among the p la in tif f s in this case, the goal being to develop cooperative discovery methods w h ic h avoid duplicating discovery requests, depositions, and effort, including p o ss ib ly withdrawing the written discovery already served on the defendant in f a v o r of sending a single non-repetitive set.
O n or before March 17, 2010, the parties shall confer to develop a joint s tip u la tio n for setting progression deadlines in this case. The joint stipulation s h a ll address, at a minimum: a. b. T h e deadline for Haferland's service of mandatory disclosures; T h e deadline for disclosure of experts and expert reports. By agreement o f the parties, expert disclosure deadlines may be staggered. T h e discovery and deposition deadline. The deadline for filing motions to certify the conditional classes and to c r e a te , if appropriate, subclasses. T h e deadline for filing any Rule 23 class certification motion. T h e deadline for filing motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment or motions to exclude expert testimony on Daubert and related grounds. A proposed pretrial conference deadline (by week and month); and A proposed trial deadline (by month), along with a statement indicating th e anticipated length of the trial.
T h e parties' proposed progression schedule shall be emailed to the u n d e rsig n e d at firstname.lastname@example.org. If any case progression issues cannot b e jointly resolved by the parties, the proposed progression schedule shall id e n tif y those issues and set forth the parties respective positions.
D A T E D this 4th day of March, 2010. B Y THE COURT: S / Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge
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?