Piasecki vs. Lozano Smith, Inc., et al.
Filing
12
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/10/11. Expert Disclosure Deadline: 10/19/2012; Supplemental Expert Disclosure Deadline: 11/9/2012; Discovery Deadline: 10/26/2012 (non-expert), 11/30/2012 (expert); Non -Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 11/16/2012; Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 12/14/2012; Pretrial Conference set for 2/13/2013 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 1 (SMS) before Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder; Jury Trial set for 4/8/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 1 (SMS) before Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder. (Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CYNTHIA M. PIASECKI,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
LOZANO, SMITH, INC., CARLITA
ROMERO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
New Case No.
1:11-cv-01219-SMS (Doc. 11)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
Expert Disclosure Deadline:
10/19/12
Supplemental Expert
Disclosure Deadline:
11/9/12
17
Discovery Deadline:
10/26/12 (non-expert)
11/30/12 (expert)
18
19
Non-Dispositive Motion
Filing Deadline: 11/16/12
20
21
Dispositive Motion
Filing Deadline: 12/14/12
22
Settlement Conference Date:
parties to engage in mediation
23
24
Pre-Trial Conference Date:
2/13/13, 1:30pm, Ctrm. 1/SMS
25
Trial Date: 4/8/13, 9:00am,
Ctrm. 1/SMS (JT ~ 7-10 days)
26
27
28
1.
Date of Scheduling Conference:
November 8, 2011.
1
1
2.
Appearances of Counsel:
2
Jacob J. Rivas, Esq., appeared on behalf of plaintiff.
3
Bren K. Thomas, Esq., of Littler Mendelson appeared on
4
5
6
7
behalf of defendants.
3.
The Pleadings:
A.
Summary of the Pleadings.
This case alleges retaliation under both California
8
and federal law, and disability discrimination under California
9
Government Code §§ 12940, et seq.
10
Plaintiff’s Contentions
11
Plaintiff worked for defendant as a legal secretary
12
beginning in June of 2009 and ending in February of 2011.
13
after her date of hire, plaintiff complained to supervisors
14
regarding inequitable employment practices which favored other
15
legal secretaries over plaintiff.
16
was done to address plaintiff’s concerns.
17
contributed to an exacerbation of her Grave’s disease.
18
then submitted her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunities
19
Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair
20
Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and she was terminated by
21
defendants shortly thereafter.
22
23
Shortly
Despite her complaints, nothing
Her working conditions
Plaintiff
Plaintiff claims she was subjected to retaliation
and discrimination in the terms of her employment and termination.
24
Defendants’ Contentions
25
Defendants deny all liability as to each claim
26
alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.
27
that plaintiff suffered any adverse employment action as a result
28
of any alleged disability or retaliation.
Furthermore, defendants deny
2
Defendants have filed an
1
answer herein alleging specific affirmative defenses, which they
2
incorporate by reference.
3
B.
4
5
6
7
No amendments are proposed at this time.
4.
Factual Summary:
A.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Plaintiff took leave in October of 2010 and
returned in December of 2010.
14
15
Plaintiff’s job duties consisted of preparation
of legal documents.
12
13
Plaintiff was hired as a legal secretary by
defendant firm in or around June of 2009.
10
11
Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without
further proceedings.
8
9
Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.
(4)
On January 10, 2011, plaintiff met with Greg
Wedner to discuss issues relating to her employment.
16
(5)
Plaintiff sent an email to Carlita Romero, Andy
17
Garcia, and Greg Wedner on January 13, 2011, stating that she had
18
filed a claim with the DFEH and EEOC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(6)
Plaintiff was terminated by defendant firm on
February 3, 2011.
B.
Contested Facts.
(1)
Whether plaintiff performed her job duties in a
competent and efficient manner.
(2)
Whether plaintiff was treated in the same
manner and held to the same standards as other legal assistants.
(3)
Whether plaintiff was subjected to
27
discriminatory conduct by defendants based on her alleged
28
disability and submission of claims to the DFEH and EEOC.
3
1
(4)
Whether plaintiff was subjected to retaliatory
2
conduct by defendants based on her alleged disability and
3
submission of claims to the DFEH and EEOC.
4
(5)
Whether plaintiff, prior to February of 2010,
5
ever received any negative criticism regarding her job performance
6
and work product.
7
(6)
Whether, between June of 2009 and February of
8
2010, similarly situated legal secretaries employed with defendant
9
firm began taking prolonged lunches and breaks, arriving late to
10
work, departing early from work, and using the internet for non
11
work-related matters.
12
(7)
If privileges were afforded to similarly
13
situated legal secretaries employed with defendant firm, including
14
taking prolonged lunches and breaks, arriving late to work,
15
departing early from work, and using the internet for non work-
16
related matters, whether plaintiff was afforded similar privileges.
17
(8)
Whether plaintiff was required to perform
18
additional work in order to compensate for the work not being done
19
by the other legal secretaries.
20
(9)
Whether plaintiff complained to her immediate
21
supervisor, Tom Gauthier, Esq., that she was being required to
22
perform additional and different job duties than other similarly
23
situated legal secretaries in the office.
24
(10) Whether plaintiff further complained that her
25
work load was substantially greater than other similarly situated
26
legal secretaries because they were taking prolonged lunches and
27
breaks, arriving late to work, departing early from work, and using
28
the internet for non work-related matters.
4
1
(11) Whether plaintiff raised complaints in February
2
of 2010; and, if immediately afterwards, whether she began
3
receiving negative comments and criticism regarding her job
4
performance and work product, including verbal and written
5
reprimands.
6
(12) Whether a performance evaluation conducted in
7
July of 2010 concluded that plaintiff “consistently performs all
8
duties of the position in a fully capable manner; meets all
9
expected criteria for quality, quantity and timeliness of work,
10
including meeting goals and objectives.”
11
(13) Whether plaintiff suffered an exacerbation of
12
her Graves’ disease due to the conditions of her employment with
13
defendant firm.
14
15
(14) Whether plaintiff contacted the DFEH to discuss
the disparate treatment by defendant firm.
16
17
(15) Whether plaintiff contacted the EEOC to discuss
the disparate treatment by defendant firm.
18
(16) All other facts.
19
5.
20
Legal Issues:
A.
21
22
Uncontested.
(1)
Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
(2)
Venue.
§ 1441(b).
23
24
B.
Contested.
25
(1)
Whether defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.
26
(2)
Whether defendants violated California
27
Government Code § 12940(h).
28
//
5
1
2
(3)
Whether defendants violated California
Government Code § 12926(a).
3
(4)
Whether defendants are liable to plaintiff.
4
(5)
Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages.
5
(6)
All other legal issues.
6
6.
Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction:
7
On November 9, 2011 (Doc. 11), pursuant to the consent of
8
the parties, Judge Ishii ordered this case reassigned solely to the
9
docket of the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate
10
Judge, for all purposes, including trial, thereby changing the case
11
number/initials as follows:
1:11-cv-01219-SMS
12
13
Counsel are herein advised that future use of an incorrect case
14
number/initials could result in documents being mis-directed and/or
15
mis-calendared by the appropriate judicial officer and/or staff.
16
17
7.
Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates:
A.
Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.26(b), and except as the court
18
may order after a showing of good cause, the “(p)arties may obtain
19
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
20
the claim or defense of any other party.”
21
B.
Unless otherwise stipulated between the parties or
22
ordered by the court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.26(b)(2), discovery
23
shall be limited as follows:
24
(1)
25
26
27
28
Depositions:
a.
Each side may take no more than ten (10)
b.
A deposition shall be limited to one (1)
depositions.
day of seven (7) hours.
F.R.Civ.P.30(d).
6
1
(2)
2
Interrogatories:
a.
“(A)ny party may serve upon any other party
3
written interrogatories, not exceeding 25 in number including all
4
discrete subparts . . .”
5
C.
F.R.Civ.P.33(a).
Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.26(e), the parties shall
6
supplement their disclosures and amend their responses to discovery
7
requests in a timely manner.
8
D.
The parties are ordered to complete all discovery
9
pertaining to non-experts on or before October 26, 2012, and all
10
discovery pertaining to experts on or before November 30, 2012.
11
E.
The parties are directed to disclose all expert
12
witnesses, in writing, on or before October 19, 2012, and all
13
supplemental expert witnesses, in writing, on or before November 9,
14
2012.
15
F.R.Civ.P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B), and shall include all
16
information required thereunder.
17
compliance with this Order may result in the court excluding the
18
testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are
19
not disclosed pursuant to this Order.
The written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to
20
Failure to designate experts in
The provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4) and (5)
21
shall apply to all discovery relating to experts and their
22
opinions.
23
subjects and opinions included in the designation.
24
comply will result in the imposition of sanctions, which may
25
include striking the expert designation and preclusion of expert
26
testimony.
27
//
28
/
Experts must be fully prepared to be examined on all
7
Failure to
1
8.
2
Pre-Trial Motion Schedule:
All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any
3
discovery motions, shall be filed on or before November 16, 2012,
4
and are (customarily) heard on Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. in
5
Courtroom No. 1 on the Eighth Floor before the Honorable Sandra M.
6
Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge.
7
Judge Snyder’s chambers that a hearing date first be cleared with
8
chambers staff at (559) 499-5692 prior to the filing of any non-
9
dispositive motions and supporting documents.
NOTE: It is the policy of
Judge Snyder’s
10
chambers also requires prompt courtesy copies in excess of 25/50
11
pages in compliance with Local Rule 133(f).
12
comply with Local Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or
13
the motion will be denied without prejudice and dropped from
14
calendar.1
15
Counsel must also
In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may
16
grant applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local
17
Rule 144.
18
time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 251.
19
However, if counsel does not obtain an order shortening
Counsel may appear, and argue non-dispositive motions,
20
telephonically, provided a (written) request to so appear is
21
presented to chambers staff (559-499-5692) no later than five (5)
22
court days prior to the noticed hearing date.
ALL Out-of-town
23
24
25
26
27
1
Local Rule 251(a) ~ revised 12/1/09 ~ requires a joint statem ent re discovery disagreem ent be filed
seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date (i.e., the W ednesday prior to the custom ary W ednesday
hearing). Any m otion(s) will be dropped from calendar IF the statem ent is not filed OR tim ely filed AND
courtesy copies of any and all m otions, including the 251 stipulation, declarations, and exhibits, properly
tabbed, fastened, and clearly identified as a “Courtesy Copy (to avoid inadvertent, duplicative, and/or
erroneous filing by court staff), exceeding twenty-five (25) pages pursuant to Local Rule 133(f), are not
delivered to the Clerk’s Office at 9:00 a.m . on the fourth (4 th) FULL day (or Thursday) prior to the (custom ary)
hearing (on W ednesday).
28
8
1
counsel are strongly encouraged to appear telephonically via a
2
single conference call to chambers.
3
request to appear telephonically, then it shall be the obligation
4
and responsibility of the moving party(ies) to make prior
5
arrangements for the single conference call with an AT&T operator,
6
IF counsel do not have conference call capabilities on their
7
telephone systems, and to initiate the call to the court.
8
9
If two or more attorneys
Regarding discovery disputes, no written discovery
motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned
10
Magistrate Judge.
11
confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve by
12
agreement the issues in dispute.
13
unsuccessful, the moving party shall then seek a prompt hearing
14
with the assigned Magistrate Judge by telephone or in person.
15
the hearing is to be conducted by telephone, the Courtroom Deputy
16
Clerk will inform counsel of the date and time of the hearing, and
17
it shall be the responsibility of the moving party to initiate the
18
telephonic conference call to chambers.
19
telephonic hearings or conferences with the Court is prohibited,
20
except with prior permission of the Court.
21
hearing with a judicial officer carries with it a professional
22
representation by the attorney that a conference has taken place
23
and that s/he has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.
A party with a discovery dispute must first
If that good faith effort is
If
The recording of
The request for a
24
The attorneys or unrepresented parties shall supply the
25
assigned Magistrate Judge with the particular discovery materials
26
(i.e., objectionable answers to interrogatories) that are needed to
27
understand the dispute.
28
//
9
1
If the assigned Magistrate Judge decides that motion
2
papers and supporting memoranda are needed to satisfactorily
3
resolve the discovery dispute, such papers shall be filed in
4
conformity with Rule 7.
5
interrogatory, question at deposition, request for admission, or
6
request for production to which the motion is addressed, or
7
otherwise identify specifically and succinctly the discovery to
8
which objection is taken or from which a protective order is
9
sought; and, (2) the response or objection and grounds therefor, if
10
Such motions shall (1) quote in full each
any, as stated by the opposing party.
11
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the complete
12
transcripts or discovery papers need not be filed with the Court
13
pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule unless the motion cannot be
14
fairly decided without reference to the complete original.
15
All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed on or
16
before December 14, 2012, and are (customarily) heard on Wednesdays
17
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1 on the Eighth Floor before the
18
Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge.
19
scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rules 230
20
and 260.
In
21
Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication
22
Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion
23
for summary adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in
24
person or by telephone, and confer to discuss the issues to be
25
raised in the motion.
26
The purpose of the meeting shall be to: (1) avoid filing
27
motions for summary judgment where a question of fact exists; (2)
28
determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit
10
1
in whole or in part; (3) discuss whether issues can be resolved
2
without the necessity of briefing; (4) narrow the issues for review
3
by the Court; (5) explore the possibility of settlement before the
4
parties incur the expense of briefing a summary judgment motion;
5
(6) arrive at a joint statement of undisputed facts.
6
The moving party shall initiate the meeting and provide a
7
draft of the joint statement of undisputed facts.
8
the requirements of Local Rule 260, the moving party shall file a
9
joint statement of undisputed facts.
10
In addition to
In the notice of motion, the moving party shall certify
11
that the parties have met and conferred as ordered above or set
12
forth a statement of good cause for the failure to meet and confer.
13
9.
14
Pre-Trial Conference Date:
February 13, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 1 on the
15
Eighth Floor before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States
16
Magistrate Judge.
17
Ten (10) days prior to the Pretrial Conference, the
18
parties shall exchange the disclosures required pursuant to
19
F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3).
20
The parties are ordered to file a JOINT Pretrial
21
Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2).
22
further ordered to submit a digital copy of their Joint Pretrial
23
Statement in WordPerfect X32 format to Judge Snyder’s chambers by
24
e-mail to SMSOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.
25
26
The parties are
Counsels' attention is directed to Rules 281 and 282 of
the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California
27
2
28
If W ordPerfect X3 is not available to the parties, then the latest version of W ordPerfect, or any other
word processing program in general use for IBM com patible personal com puters, is acceptable.
11
1
as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for the Pre-Trial
2
Conference.
3
those Rules.
4
10.
5
The Court will insist upon strict compliance with
Trial Date:
April 8, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 1 on the
6
Eighth Floor before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States
7
Magistrate Judge.
8
A.
This is a jury trial.
9
B.
Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time:
10
7-10 days.
11
12
13
C.
Counsels' attention is directed to Rule 285 of the
Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.
11.
14
Settlement Conference:
The parties agree to engage in a private mediation prior
15
to and independent of any Settlement Conference.
16
the parties desire a Settlement Conference, they will jointly
17
request one of the Court, and one will be arranged.
18
19
12.
22
Not applicable at this time.
25
However, defendant may
request bifurcation of liability and punitive damages.
13.
23
24
Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,
or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:
20
21
However, should
Related Matters Pending:
Not applicable at this time.
14.
Compliance with Federal Procedure:
The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of
26
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern
27
District of California.
28
administration of this case, all counsel are expected to
To aid the Court in the efficient
12
1
familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2
and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of
3
California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto.
4
Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to
5
efficiently handle its increasing caseload.
6
imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the
7
Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.
8
9
15.
The
Sanctions will be
Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:
On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for
10
the Eastern District of California became an electronic case
11
management/filing district (CM/ECF).
12
or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically
13
as of January 3, 2005, in all actions pending before the court.
14
While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court
15
will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the
16
official court record in all cases will be electronic.
17
are required to file electronically in pro se cases.
18
information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be
19
found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including
20
the Court’s Local Rules, the CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the
21
CM/ECF User’s Manual.
22
Unless excused by the Court,
Attorneys
More
While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a
23
proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if
24
improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in
25
an improper format.
26
appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the
27
requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of
28
these electronic filing procedures.
An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in
13
See L.R. 110, L.R. 133(d)(3).
1
All counsel must be registered for CM/ECF.
On-line
2
registration is available at www.caed.uscourts.gov.
3
registered, counsel will receive a login and password in
4
approximately one (1) week.
5
documents on-line.
6
knowing the rules governing electronic filing in the Eastern
7
District.
8
Court’s web site.
9
10
16.
Once
Counsel must be registered to file
See L.R. 135(g).
Counsel are responsible for
Please review the Court’s Local Rules available on the
Effect of this Order:
The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the
11
Court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case
12
to resolution.
The trial date reserved is specifically reserved
13
for this case.
If the parties determine at any time that the
14
schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are ORDERED
15
to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made,
16
either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.
17
Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein
18
will not be considered unless accompanied by affidavits or
19
declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which
20
establish good cause for granting the relief requested.
21
Scheduling orders are vital to the Court’s case
22
management.
23
Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986), and are
24
intended to alleviate case management problems.
25
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).
26
conference order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,
27
which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.”
28
F.2d at 610.
Scheduling orders “are the heart of case management,”
14
Johnson v. Mammoth
A “scheduling
Johnson, 975
1
2
THEREFORE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT
IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
icido3
November 10, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
]]>
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?
