U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AZ Metro Distributors LLC

Filing 104

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Motion Hearing held on April 13, 2017 and ORDER granting 94 Motion to Compel Further 30(b)(6) Depositions of EEOC, granting 95 Motion to Compel Production of Documents for I n Camera Review, and deferring ruling on 97 Motion for Protective Order or to Quash Subpoenas. Attorneys Kirsten Peters and Jeffrey Burstein appeared for Plaintiff. Attorney Christopher Keenan appeared for Defendant. Detailed minutes of the motion hearing are annexed. A telephone conference is scheduled for June 1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. (Tape #10:19-12:30.) (Syed, Sofie)

BEFORE:

PEGGY KUO
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DOCKET NO. CV-15-5370
CASE NAME:

DATE:
START TIME:
END TIME:
DISTRICT JUDGE:

4/13/2017
10:19 a.m.
12:30 p.m.
ENV

EEOC v. AZ Metro Distributors, LLC
CIVIL CONFERENCE

PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE: Motion Hearing
APPEARANCES: Plaintiff:

Kirsten J. Peters, Esq.
Jeffrey Burstein, Esq.
Christopher P. Keenan, Esq.

Defendant:
SCHEDULINGS AND RULINGS:

1. With respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order or to Quash Subpoenas at [97],
the Court found that the Motion is moot with regard to the Subpoena served on
Diversified Consulting. The Court deferred ruling on the Motion with regard to the
remaining subpoenas.
2. The Court set the following schedule for supplemental briefing on the relevance of
communications to and from Monique Roberts, unrelated to the Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses:
a. Defendant shall file its Supplemental Brief, of maximum 5 pages, by April 28,
2017;
b. Plaintiff shall file its Supplemental Brief in Response, of maximum 5 pages,
by May 12, 2017;
c. No Reply Brief shall be permitted.
d. A Telephone Conference is scheduled for June 1, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Defendant’s counsel shall initiate the call, with Plaintiff’s counsel on the line,
by calling Chambers as 718-613-2400.
3. With respect to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further 30(b)(6) Depositions of
EEOC at [94], the Court heard argument and ruled as follows:
1

a. Defendant’s request to re-open the 30(b)(6) deposition of Arlean Nieto is
granted. Ms. Nieto is not required to review the EEOC’s Investigative File but
is directed to clearly answer any questions concerning factual information
outside of the Investigative File in accordance with the Court’s ruling at [67],
point 2(b), including questions concerning the source of her knowledge of
facts outside of the Investigative File. Defendant may not ask Ms. Nieto
questions which she has already answered in her prior deposition testimony.
b. The Court denied Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs related to
this Motion and the re-opening of Ms. Nieto’s deposition.
4. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents for In
Camera Review at [95]. The Court heard argument on Plaintiff’s assertions of the
government deliberative process privilege and attorney-client privilege, and reviewed
the following seventeen documents from Plaintiff’s November 1, 2016 Privilege Log at
[95-1]: 3, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 34. The Court
ruled that all seventeen documents are protected by privilege and thus may be withheld
from production by Plaintiff.
5. The Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to inform Defendant’s counsel of the date and
time of the deposition of Tom Marigliano, Defendant’s former employee, so that
Defendant’s counsel may attend.

2