Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2012 Page 1 of 6

rN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THL SOUTI IERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PlERCE DIVISION

EQUAL Et'vfPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMlSSION.

)

)

Plaintiff.

)

)

V.

)

BAY STATE MILLrNG COMPANY.

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________

)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under the Ag~ Discrimination in Emplo:ment Act to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Gary Legore. As alleged with greater specificity below. Plaintiff Equal Employment Oppot1unity Commission (..EEOC.. or --commission") charges that Defendant Bay State Milling Company (''Bay State Milling'') subjected Charging Party Legore (''Charging Pm·ty") to age discrimination when it failed to hire him because of his age.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE l. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant co 28 U.S.C. §§ 451. 1331, 1337, 1343 and
1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (the ··ADEA''). which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the ·'FLSA..). as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 216(c) and 217. 2. The alleged unla\\ful employment practices were committed within the Jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofF1orida. Fort Pierce Division.

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2012 Page 2 of 6
PARTlES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agenc; of the United States of America charged \Vith the
administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to
* bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA. :!9 U.S.C. 626(b). as amended by Section
2 of Reorganization Plan No. l of 1978. 92 Stat. 3781. and by Public Law 98-532 (1984). 98 Stat. 2705. 4. At all relevant times. Defendant Bay State Milling has continuously been a Minnesota corporation doing business in the State of Florida and within the City of lndiantown, Florida and ha."i continuously had at least twenty (20) employees. 5. At all relevant times. Defendant Bay State Milling has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections ll(bJ. (g) and (h) ofthe ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b). (g) and (h).
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit. Charging Party filed a
charge with the Commission alleging violations ofthe ADEA by Bay State Milling. 7. Prior to the institution of tlli.s lawsuit. the Commission issued a Ldter of Determination
finding reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party Legore was denied employment by Bay State r--lilling because of his age. X. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission·s representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(bl of the ADEA. 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). 9. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled.

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2012 Page 3 of 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10. Bay State Milling owns and operat~s a flour mill facility located in Indiantown. Florida. ll. On or about January, 20 II. Bay State Milling posted a job advertisement on its website
announcing a vacuncy in its Indiantown facility tor the position ofl\filler. 12. The joh posting wa::. titled. Miller-Milling Experience preferred. 13. The ~tiller position description included job duties including, but not limited to.
supervising hourly plant employees regarding regulatory and manufacturing practices: training personnel regarding safety, operating procedures. and company policies: and investigating and identifying OSIIA, hazards. food and sanitation issues. 14. Charging Party Legore v.·as bom in I958. 15. On or about January I0, 201l. in response to Bay State Milling's internet job posting for the vacant miller position. Charging Party Legore faxed a copy of his resume to the lndiantow11 facility Plant Manager. William Raiola. 16. The next day. January II, 2011, Charging Party Legore called Plant Manager Raiola to discuss his qualifications for the .Miller position. to advise that he would be traveling to Florida and that he \\'atlled to schcduh.: an interview for the vacant tvtiller position. 17. During the course of the conversation, Charging Party Legore advised Plant Manager Raiola that he had more than twenty (20) years ofexperience in the milling industry. 18. Raiola responded...I don't want to waste yow· time." .., am looking tor a younger man with maybe two years experience.'' whom he could "groom for a plam manager job down the line and for the future.. and informed Charging Party Legore that he would not be considered for the position.
J

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2012 Page 4 of 6
19. Charging Party Legore had been successfully employed by Bay State Milling Company bet\\Cen 1995 and 1997 as a Miller in its Clifton. New .krsey t~1cility and perfonned his dudes and responsibilities in an exemplat)' manner.
20. Charging Party Legore immediately contacted Bay State Milling's Human Resources Department to inform them of Plant Manager Raiola's discriminatory comments made in response to his expression of interest in the vacant Miller position.
21. Bay State Milling udmiued that Plant Manager Raiola said he wanted a "younger.. person for the miller p\1sicion, but told Legore that Raiola did not mean younger in terms of age,
but rather meant younger in tenns of l::<perience. 21. Bay State Milling determined that Legore's was "owrqualificd"' fC..H· the vacam Miller
position due to his experience. 23. Despite Pl<mt t-.fanagcr Raiola·s discriminatory remarks and Bay State Milling"s response.
Charging Party Legore continued lO seck cmploymcm with Bay State Milling as a f\·filler.
2-J.. On or about April 15, 2011, Bay State Milling hired a twenty-three (23) )"l!ar old individual
with little to no experience for the vacant Miller position in its Indiantown tacility.
25. As a result, Charging Party Gary Legore has suftcred and contimtes to suffer damages. STATEt-.·fENT OF CLAIMS
26. Paragraphs ten { l 0) through twenty-tive (25) are tl.tlly incorporated herein. 27. Bay State Milling violated the Age Discrimination in Employmem Act by failing to hire
Gary Legore for the vacant Miller position for which he was qualified because of hi:. age in violation of Section 4(a) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623{a)(l ). 28. The eiTcct of the practil.:es complained of in paragmph~ tl!n (I 0) through twenty-tin: (25) above has been to deprive Charging Party Legore of equal employment opportunities and othen\ ise adversely affect his status ns an applicant for employment. because of his age.
4

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2012 Page 5 of 6
29. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs ten (I 0) through twentyfive <25) abo\'e wen! and are willful within the mcruting of Section 7(b) of the ADEA. 29
u.s.c. § 626(b).
PRA YFR FOR RELIEF Wherefore. the Commission respectful!) requests that this Cour1: A. Grant a pem1ancnt iqjunction enjoining Bny State Milling. its otliccrs, agents, servants. employees. attorneys. and all pcr:-.ons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in age based hiring di~crimination: B. Order Bay State Milling to institute and carry out policies. practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals 40 years of age tUld older, and which eradicate the effects of ib past and present unlawful employmem practices: C. Enter a judgmem requiring Bay State Milling to pay appropriate back \Vages in an amount to be detem1ined at trial. and an equal sum as liquidated damages. and prejudgment interest to Charging Party Legore as a result of the acts complained of abo\'e; D. Enter an Order compelling Bay State Milling to instate and employ Gary Legore as a miller: E. Order Bay State Milling to make whole Charging Par1y Legore who was adversely atTccted by the unla\\ful practices described above. by providing the affi.nnativc- relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices: F. Gnmt such fur1her relief as the Cour1 deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and G. Av,:ard the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
5

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2012 Page 6 of 6
Respectfully Submitted, P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deput} General Counsel G\\ ENDOLYN Y. REAM~ Associate General Cuun:;el Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M Slreet N.E. Washington. D.C. 20507
ROBERT E. WEISBERG
Regional Attorney KIMBERLY A. McCOY-CRUZ
Trial Attome)
florida Bar No. 89249 I U.S. EQUAL EMPI OYMLNT OPPORTUNITY COMMISS ION
Mi<mli District Office Miami Tower l00 SE 2"d Street. 15th Floor t\fiami. FL 33131 Tel: (305)808-1783
Fax:(305)808-l835
Email: aarrin.golsonra ecoc.gov
6

 
 Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 6

UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN D ISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO . l2-l4439-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION , Plaintiff,
M.
BAY STATE MILLING CO ., Defendant .
/

FILED by

D.C,

JUN 132213 sgL'EEVREKNoMs.LARIMORE s.D.oFP-L/.-. FD't.sp'clcR'cce

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 32)

THIS CAUSE comes before th is Court upon the above Motion .

Having reviewed the Motion , Response , and Rep ly , this Court

finds as follows :

The instant Motion concerns the Defendant's First Set

of Interrogatories and First Request for Production . Given the

comp lexity of the resulting discovery disputes, this Court

requested the parties to brief them in lieu of a hearing . The

parties now have fully briefed the various issues, and this

Court has considered the parties' respective arguments .

On April 8, 2013 the Plaintiff answered the above two

discovery requests, including raising objections and asserting

privileges (along with a privilege log). From that point through

the

filing

of

the

instant Motion

to

Compel on May

24eh ,

the

parties have been try ing to resolve disputes regarding those

answers .

Th i s

ef fo rt

in c lu ded

supp lemental

answers

on

May

3rd and

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 2 of 6

additional supp lemental answers after the filing of the Motion

to Compel . It appears that the main areas of dispute concerned the Plaintiff's statement of damages and the appropriateness of particu lar assertions of priv ilege .

appears that the supplemental productions , b0th

before

and

after

the

filing

of

the

Motion

to

Compel ,

hav e

mo oted

many of the Defendant 's arguments . Therefore this Court lim its

the scope of the instant ruling to those matters that the

Defendant addresses in its Rep ly .

4 . To begin with , there is the Defendant's continued

objection to what it characterizes as the Plaintiff's

''formulaic'' use of objections in its discovery answers. The
Plaintiff disagrees w ith this characterization . Ultimately , however , this particular issue is moot . The Plaintiff states

that it has produced al1 responsive and non -priv ileged documents

in its possession . Moreover the briefing of the Motion clarifies

what underly ing disputes remain . Nor does this Court find

certain answers by the Plaintiff-in wh ich it refers to the

docum ent production on the whole- sufficiently egregious under

the full circum stances to warrant relief . This Court therefore

will focus on the substantive matters in dispute . Perhaps the ma in underly ing issue concerns the
propriety of the Pla intiff's assertion of two particular

privileges. (This Court overrules the Defendant's claims that Page 2 of 6

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 3 of 6
the initial or amended privilege logs are procedurally
defective.) This Court begins with the Plaintiff's assertion of the Governmental Deliberative Process Privilege . By the close of
briefing on this issue, the Defendant's remaining argument is that its assertion is technically untimely . The Defendant argues that a governmental party does not fully invoke the privilege until the relevant departmental head has produced an affidavit and that , here , the Plaintiff did not do so until its Response
to the Motion to Compel. (Otherwise, this Court observes, the Plaintiff consistently has asserted the privilegev) Under the full circumstances, this Court does not find the Defendant 's argument persuasive . In the case upon which the Defendant mainly
relies in support of its argument , even it were binding authority , the court there waived the procedural defect and proceeded to consider the privilege on its merits . This Court
exercises that same discretion here, and finds no prejudice
to the Defendant from any late filing of the department head affidavit .
In the event that this Court accepted the late-filed affidavit , the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's assertion of privilege nonetheless does not vouch for three particular Bates-stamped pages of documents and thus the Defendant asks at the m inimum that the Plaintiff be compelled to produce them . Whether this omission was simple oversight or not is unclear .
Page 3 of

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 4 of 6
However this Court is confident that the parties can resolve the issue of these three pages of documents on their own with the benefit of the instant ruling .
7 . The other privilege in dispute is the Plaintiff's assertion of Rule 408 , Fed . Ev idence , as a privilege . Briefing on this dispute has refined the issue to the question of whether this ru le , which bars the admissibility of settlement-related evidence at trial , also app lies to discovery . The Plaintiff seeks to invoke this privilege to protect it from disclosing documents generated during the course of an administrative-level conciliatory proceeding (akin to settlement) Even if the Defendant is correct that Rule 4O8 does not apply to the discovery context , its argument still fails . The Defendant 's argument fails because it still must demonstrate that the information at issue otherwise is discoverable . That is, that the settlement-related information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm issible evidence . The Defendant does not make this additional show ing . It must be remembered that assertions and deliberations made during a settlement or settlement-like undertaking are (and should be) motivated by the spirit of comprom ise . Thus any assertion made in that context- for examp le, the amount of a damages claim-does not necessarily reflect that party 's actual position . Because the Defendant does not explain what assertions or other
Page 4 of

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 5 of 6

information produced during the course of the conciliatory

effort constitutes ev idence that can be used to prove the same

in the fact-finding context, its argument fails . Moreover this

Court finds the case 1aw cited by the Defendant distinguishable .

8 . A ffirming the Plaintiff's invocation of the above two

privileges renders moot much of the discovery dispute . Another

underlying core issue concerns the Plaintiff 's production of

discovery regarding damages (an issue which overlaps greatly

with the above privilege disputes). The Defendant complains

about the sufficiency of the Plaintiff 's answers, namely , the

fact that it has not revised its original assertion of $72,000
and does not provide calculations to support that figure . The

Defendant seeks to compel a complete and comprehensive

quantification of

damages that the Plaintiff is seeking .

Regardless of the various arguments and disputes surrounding

this issue , the dispositive point remains that the Plaintiff

cannot be compelled to produced something that it does not have .

The Plaintiff affirmatively states that it has produced all

information regarding damages that has available (and that is

not otherwise privileged or not discoverable). The remaining point in issue is whether the Defendant

is entitled to recover its fees and costs for pursuing its

Motion to Compel . After carefully considering 50th parties'

Page 5 of 6

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 6 of 6 positions on this matter , this Court finds that under the full circumstances , a fee and cost award is not warranted here . Based on the foregoing , it is hereby , ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Compel is DENIED . DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida , this
//Yre yofJune,2013.
J . NCH R .
z./
TED STA MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc : Jennifer A . Schwartz, Esq . Aarrin Golson , Esq . Page 6 of 6

 
 Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT FO R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIV ISION

EQUAL EM PLOYM ENT
OPPORTUN ITY COM M ISSION ,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL A CTION N O .: 2:12-cv-14439-GRAHA M /LYNCH

BAY STATE M ILLIN G COM PAN Y, Defendant.

CON SENT D ECREE

INTRO DUCTIO N

This ConsentDecree (ççDecree'') ismade and entered into by the Plaintiff Equal

EmploymentOpportunity Commission (dGtheCommission'')and Defendant Bay State

Milling Company ($$Bay State'). The Commission and Bay State are collectively

referredto asthediparties''throughoutthisDecree. 2. The Comm ission filed this action on December 10,2012 underAge Discrim ination in

Em ploym entA ct,of 1967,as am ended,29 U .S.C.j626(b)(theSSADEA'')tocorrect
unlaw fulem ploym entpractices on the basis ofage,and to provide reliefto Charging

Party Gary Legore.

G EN ER AL PRO W SIO NS

Effective Date-The Effective Date ofthisD ecree isthe date on which the Courtgives

finalapprovaltothe Decreeby entering itontheCourtdockd

after m

otion ,

and

hearing

if required.

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 2 of 11

4. Term ofConsentDecree-ThisDecreeshallremainineffectfort'wo(2)yearsafterthe

effectivedate,asdefined in paragraph4.lntheeventtheterm sandobligationsoutlined

in thisDecreearenotcompletedwithin two(2)years,thePartiesshallmeetandconfer

concerning allm atters that are alleged to constitute noncom pliance.The Com m ission

reservesthe rightto filean enforcem entaction to extend the Decree forw hateverperiod

isnecessaryto allow Bay Statetocom ply fully w iththeterm softhisD ecree. Com pliance w ith FederalEEO Laws -N othing in this Decree shallbe construed to

lim itorreduce Bay State's obligation to comply w ith the statutes enforced by EEOC :

TitleVIloftheCivilRightsActof1964($$TitleVII''),asamended,42U.S.C.j2000eet

Jeg.,TitleIofthe AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(içADA''),42 U.S.C.j12l0l,as

amended,theAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentAct(çdADEA''),29U.S.C.j5621-633a,

the Equal Pay Act (d$EPA''), 29 U.S.C. j206(d) and the Genetic Information

NondiscriminationActof2008($$GlNA),42U.S.C.j2000f.
EffectofConsentD ecree-ThisDecreefully and finally resolvesclaim sasstrted by the

EEO C in the Com plaintfiled in thisaction styled EEOC v.Bay State M illing Company ,
CaseNo.2:12-ClV-14439-Graham/Lynch (S.D.Fla.)which arosefrom EEOC Charge

No.510-2011-01901.The Parties acknow ledge thatthis Decree does notresolve any

ChargesofD iscrim ination thatm ay bependingw ith EEO C againstDefendantotherthan

theChargereferred to inthisparagraph.

Com plete C onsent D ecree - This Decree constitutes the com plete understanding

betw eenthePartiesw ith respecttothemattersherein.

8. Severability - If one or m ore provisions of this Decree are rendered unlaw ful or

unenforceable,thePartiesshallattem

pt to

agree upon

whatam

endm

ents to

this D

ecree ,

if

2

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 3 of 11
any,areappropriatetoeffectuatethepurposesofthisDecree.In any event,theunaffected provisionsw illrem ain enforceable.
FG DIN GS 9. Having carefully exam ined the term s and provisionsofthisD ecree,and based on the
pleadings,record,andstipulationsoftheparties,theCourtfindsthefollow ing:
a. ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterofthisactionandtheParties; b. NopartyshallcontestthejurisdictionofthisFederalCourttoenforcethisDecree
and its term s orthe rightofEEOC to bring an enforcem ent suitupon alleged
breachofanytermts)ofthisDecree; ThtttrmsofthisDecreeareadequatt,fair,rtasonable,equitable,andjust,The
rights of Charging Party, prospective claim ants and the public interest are adequately protected bythisDecree; d. The terms ofthisD ecree are and shallbe binding upon the presentand future representatives,agents,directors,officers,successorsandassignsofBay State.
NO% THEREFORE,ITIS ORDERED,ADJUD GED AND DECREED THAT:
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 10. Bay State,its officers,m anagers,employees,agents,partners,successors,and assigns,
areenjoined from permitting,allowing,and/orencouraging itsmanagerialstaffand/or
Hum an Resources departm ent from considering age as a factor w hen m aking hiring decisionsin violation oftheADEA . Bay State,itsoffkers,m anagers,em ployets,agents,partners,successors,and assigns,
areenjoinedfrom engaging inanyform ofretaliationagainstGaryLegorebecausehe
opposed practicesm adeunlawfulundertheA DEA by filing aCharge ofDiscrim ination,

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 4 of 11
testifying orparticipating in thisinvestigation,proceeding,orhearing underthe ADEA , orassertinganyrightsunderthisDecree.
M O NETARY RELIEF
12. ln settlementofthis lawsuit,Bay State shallpay a totalof$80,185.66. Thiseighty thousand one hundred eighty five dollars and sixty six cents shallbe the full and final
amountBay State shallpay to settle Legore'sclaim broughtby the Comm ission in this law suitunderEEOC ChargeofDiscrim inationNo.510-2011-01901.
a. $40,092.83willbedesignatedasback wages.Thispaymentshallbereduced only by any applicable deductions for the em ployee'sportion ofapplicable federal,stateand localincom e tax and socialsecurity withholdingsrelated to the paym entofem ployee'sw ages. In addition,Bay State w illissue an IR S Form W -2,and shallbe responsible forpaying the em ployer's share ofany federal,stateand local,incom etaxes,and socialsecurity w ithholdings.
b. $40,092.83 willbe designated as Iiquidated damages. Bay State is not
required to withhold taxesorm akeany em ployercontributionsforFICA w ith respectto thispaym ent. Bay Statew illissue a Form 1099 to Legore forthis
am ount.
c. A llpaym ents described in this paragraph w illbe m ailed via Certified M ail
(ReturnReceipt)tothefollowingaddress:
Gary Legore c/oArthurSchotield,P.A . 330 ClematisStreet,Suite207 W estPalm Beach,Florida33401 13. IfBay State failsto tenderpaymentsasdescribed in paragraph l2,above,then Bay State agreesthatitshallalso pay interestatthe rate calculated pursuantto 31U .S.C .Section
4

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 5 of 11

3717 untilthe sam e ispaid,and bearany additionalcostsincurred by the EEOC caused

bythenon-complianceordelay ofBayState.

Copies of all payments m ade pursuant to paragraph 12, shall be forw arded to the

attention ofRobertE.W eisberg,RegionalAttorney,c/o Bay State M illing Com pany

ConsentDecree,U .S.EqualEm ploym entO pportunity Com m ission,M iam iTower,100

SE 2ndStreet Suite 1500 M iam iFlorida33131

@ .

y

j

j

.

TR M NIN G O F W ILLIAM RM OLA

15. Withinthirty(30)calendardaysfrom theEffectiveDate,BayStateisrequiredtoensure

thatRaiolacompletesfour(4)hoursoftraining abouttheADEA and agesensitivity
training.

l6. The trainings shallbe conducted by an independentthird party organization m utually

agreed upon w ith the Comm ission priorto the subm ission this Decree to the Courtfor

approval.

TRM N ING O F INTERVIEW ING O FFICIA LS A T IND IANTO W N FACILITY

l7. Bay State interview ing officials at the lndiantow n facility involved in the interview

processofprospectiveemployeesmust completeatwo(2)hourtrainingonfederalanti-

discrimination laws,with specialemphasisontheADEA,withintwo (2)monthsofthe
effectivedateofthisdecree.

18. Bay Statew illcertifytotheCom m issionthateach interview ing officialhasreceived the

appropriatetraining in itsreportasdescribedbelow .

TR M NIN G O F HU M AN R ESOUR CESPERSONN EL

l9. UponexecutionofthisDecree,Bay Stateagreesthatitshallprovidefour(4)hoursof
training for its Hum an Resources staff directly involved with the investigation of

5

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 6 of 11
Legore's case w ith specific em phasis on the investigation of discrim ination and retaliationcom plaints. 20. The training shallbe conducted by an independent third party organization m utually agreed upon w ith the Com m ission priorto the subm ission thisDecree to the Courtfor approval.
21. Thetrainingshalltakeplacewithinsixty(60)calendardaysoftheEffectiveDateofthis
D ecree. 22. Bay State agreesthatthe Comm ission,atitsdiscretion,m ay attend the training session
occurringasaresultofthisConsentDecree.Bay StatewillprovidetheCom m issionw ith
atleasttwo(2)weeks'noticeofthetime,date,location.Bay State agreesto notify the
Com m issionofany scheduling changes.
W ithinttn(10)daysofthecompletionofthetrainingsession,BayStatewillnotifythe Commissionofthenameandjobtitleofeachpersonwhoattendedthetraining.
24. Bay Statew illprovide theCom m ission w ith any and aIlpam phlets,brochures,outlines, orotherwrittenm aterialsprovidedtotheparticipantsofthetraining sessions. NO TICE
25. W ithinfourteen(14)calendardaysoftheEffectiveDateofthisDecree,BayStatewill
postlam inated copiesoftheN oticeattached asExhibitA tothisDecree atitsIndiantow n facility.
26. Noticeswillbeatleasteltven(11)inchesbyfourteen(14)inchesandwillbelaminated.
27. TheN oticeswillbeposted in aconspicuouslocation easily accessibleto and comm only
frequented by Bay State'semployees. TheNoticewillremainposted fortwo(2)years
from the Effective Date. Bay State willtake allreasonable steps to ensure thatthe
6

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 7 of 11
posting isnotaltered,defaced orcovered byany otherm aterial.
28. BayStatewillcertifytotheCommissioninwritingwithinfourteen(14)calendardaysof
theEffectiveD ateofthisDecreethattheN oticehasbeenproperly posted. M ON ITORING Ae REPOR TIN G
29. Bay Statew illprovidetotheComm ission thefollow ing written reportsonce annually for
aperiodoftwo(2)yearsfollowingtheEffectiveDateofthisDecree.Thefirstreportwill
beduebyM ay 30,2014andthereaReron M ay30,2015. Each reportshallcontain: a. A description of each discrim ination com plaint m ade by an em ployee at the
Indiantown facility,including the nam es,addressesand currenttelephone numbers ofthe complaining partiesand any w itnessesidentified by the com plaining party, andtheresolutionofsuchcom plaint; b. A description ofany and allactionsBay Statetook in response to each complaint and any written stattments obtained or providtd by the person bringing the com plaintand/orprovidedbyanyw itnesses; c. A certification thattheN otice requiredto be posted pursuanttoparagraphs25-28 of
thisDecree rem ained posttd duringthe entire six (6)month period prtcedingthe
report. 30. Bay State w ill m ake aIl em ployees available to the Com m ission for interview s in
connectionwithany informationreported pursuantto paragraph 29(a)ofthisDecree,or
forpurposesofdeterm iningand/orm onitoringBay State'scompliancew iththisDecree. 31. Any subm issions,reports,certifications,notices,orotherm aterialsthatarerequired to be
subm itted to theCom m ission shallbem ailed to:RegionalAttorney RobertE.W eisberg, Re:Bay State M illing Com pany Consent Decree, Unittd States Equal Employment

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 8 of 11

Opportunity

C om

m

ission , M

iam

iTower,100

S.E.2ndStreet ,

Suite

1500,M

iam

i,Florida

33131.

N OTIFICA TION O F SU CC ESSOR S

32. Bay Stateshallprovidepriorwritten noticetoany potentialpurchaserofallorpartofits

business,orto a purchaserofallora portion ofBay State's assets,and/orand to any

other potentialsuccessor,of the Comm ission's law suit,the allegations raised in the

Com m ission's com plaint and the existence and contents of this Decree, including

exhibits.

33. Bay State w illnotify the Com m ission in w riting,to the attention ofEEOC Regional

Attorney RobertE.W eisberg,ofany transferofownership to successorofBay Stateat

leastthirty(30)calendardayspriortotransferofownership.

CO M PLIA NCE AN D DISPUTE RESO LUTION

34. Thepartiesexpressly agree thatifthe Comm ission hasreason to believe thatDefendant

hasfailed to comply w ith any provision ofthisConsentDecree,the Com m ission m ay

bring anaction beforethisCourtto enforcetheDecree.Priortoinitiating such action,the

Com m ission w illnotify D efendant and its legal counselof record,in writing,ofthe

nature of the dispute.This notice shall specify the particular provisionts) that the
Com m ission believes Defendanthas breached. Absent a show ing thatthe delay will

cause irreparable harm ,Defendant shallhave thirty (30)calendardaysto attemptto
resolve or cure the breach.

35. The parties agree to cooperate w ith each otherand use theirbesteffortsto resolve any

disputereferenced intheEEOC notice.

36. Aherthirty(30)calendardayshavepassedwithnoresolutionoragreementtoextendthe

8

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 9 of 11 tim e further,the Comm ission m ay petition thisCourtforresolution ofthe dispute.Tht
Commission may seek allavailable relietlincluding an extension ofthe term ofthe
Decreeforsuchperiodoftim easD efendantisshownto beinbreachoftheDecree.
SOORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECREED,this /b -'d'àyof
v/
DON ALD L.GRAHA M UNITED STA TESD ISTRICT JUD GE
9

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 10 of 11

AORBED TO:
FOR PLAINTIFFBQUALEMPLOYMENTOPPORTX TY COMM ISSION:

By:

Date: ktzz f>

RcbertE,W eisberg RegionalAttmmey
U'S,EqualEmploymentOpportunityColmmisslon -MinrniDistrictOftlc:
10û2E 2BdStreet,Sulle 150û M iami,Florita33131
Telephone:(305)808-1729 Facsimile:(305)808-1835

AOREED TO:

FOR DEFENDANT BAY STATE W LLINO COM PAN Y

N

-

By: z6

-

saye:,,yx,y,a .

PrintN am e

.- r7

.

.

<0 /

-p-

Title

lTt .

JennifrSchwartz,Esq. JacksonIwewisLLP
OneBiscayneTower Two5011thBiscayneBlvd.,Suite3500 M iami,FL33131
Telephonc:(3û5)577-7600 Facsimile:(3û5)373-4466

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2013 Page 11 of 11

EXH IBIT A

NO TICE TO ALL BAY STA TE EM PLO YEES IN IND IANTO W N.FLO RID A

ThisN otice isbeing posted pursuantto a ConsentDecreeentered by theU .S.DistrictCourtin
EEOC v.BavStateM illinzCompanv,CaseNo.:2:12-cv-14439-GRAHAM /LYNCH (S.D.Fla.). Inthiscase,thePlaintiftlU.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission(theçf ommission'')
allegedthatBay StateM illing failedtohirean applicantbased on hisagein violationoftheAge
DiscriminationinEmploymentAct(d(ADEA'').
Bay State w illnotcondone em ploym entdiscrim ination ofany kind assetforth in federalantidiscrim ination law s, including, but not lim ited to, age discrim ination by em ployees or
managementofficials.Itisthepolicy ofBayStateto offeremploymentopjortunitiesto alI
qualified em ployeesand applicants,regardlessofsex,race,color,religion,natlonalorigin,age, ordisability. Therew illbe no intentionaldiscrim ination in violation ofthe provisionsofTitle Vllofthe CivilRightsActof 1964,asam ended;the A ge D iscrim ination in EmploymentA ct
(ADEA),GeneticInformationNondiscrimination Actof2008(GINA);ortheEqualPayAct (EPA)ofl963,ortheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct,asamended(ADA).

Bay State assures its em ployees that itw illnottake any action against an individual because he/shehasexercised his/herrightsunderthe Iaw to opposediscrim inatory actsorto file chargeswith EEOC orgovernm entagencies.Appropriate correctiveaction,up to and including
termination,based uponthecircumstancesinvolved,shallbetaken againstany employee
(including managementpersonnel)found to have violated Bay State's policiesprohibitlng
discrim ination and retaliation.

The Com m ission enforcesthefederallaw sagainstdiscrim ination in em ploymenton the basis of disability,race,color,religion,national origin,sex,and age.lf you believe you have
beendiscriminatedagainst,youmaycontactEEOC at(305)808-1740.EEOC chargesnofees
and hasem ployeeswho speak languagesotherthanEnglish.

ThisNoticemustremainpostedfortwo(2)yearsfrom thedatebelow andmustnotbe

altered,defaced or covered by any other material.A ny questions aboutthis Notice may be

directed to:Bay State Consent D ecree,c/o RobertE.W eisberg,RegionalA ttorney,EEOC,

M

iam

iTower,100

S.E.2ndSt.,Suite

1500,M

iam

i,Florida

33131 .

D ate:

O w ner Bay StateM illingCompany

 
 Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 12‐14439‐CIV‐GRAHAM/LYNCH1 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY, Defendant.
___________________________________/
CASE NO. 13‐14032‐CIV‐GRAHAM/LYNCH GARY LEGORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY, Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER AND OMNIBUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CROSS‐ MOTIONS REGARDING VACATING OR ENFORCING SETTLEMENT In the evening of November 12, 2013, the parties reached a settlement at a court‐
ordered settlement conference before the Undersigned. The settlement terms were read
into the record and each party agreed to its terms. Plaintiff Gary Legore (“Mr. Legore”)
has now moved to vacate the settlement. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 78; Case No. 13‐

1

United States Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. is the magistrate judge

assigned to these two related cases. These cases are before the Undersigned based on

the District Court’s specific referral to the Undersigned to conduct a settlement

conference and for a report and recommendations regarding the issues arising from the

settlement conference.

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 2 of 21
14032, ECF No. 87]. Defendant Bay State Milling Company (“Bay State”) filed an omnibus response in opposition and an incorporated motion to enforce the settlement. [Case No. 13‐14032, ECF Nos. 90; 91; 92]. Plaintiff the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) filed a response opposing Mr. Legore’s motion to vacate. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 85]. The EEOC also filed a response to Bay State’s motion to enforce the settlement, which included a cross‐motion to require Bay State to demonstrate compliance with the consent decree. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 86]. Bay State opposes the EEOC’s cross‐motion. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 88]. The District Court has referred these matters to me. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 79; Case No. 13‐ 14032, ECF No. 88].
The Undersigned has reviewed the parties’ briefing, the transcript of the settlement conference, and the relevant portions of the record. For the reasons outlined below, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court deny Mr. Legore’s motion to vacate the settlement, grant in part and deny in part Bay State’s motion to enforce the settlement, and deny the EEOC’s cross‐motion. The Undersigned also orders that the transcript of the settlement conference be unsealed. I. BACKGROUND
A. General Background In response to Mr. Legore’s allegation that he was not hired by Bay State because of his age, the EEOC filed suit against Bay State on December 10, 2012, alleging age
2

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 3 of 21

discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §

623, et seq. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 1]. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Legore retained

private counsel and filed suit alleging a Florida state law based age discrimination

claim. [Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 1]. The EEOC and Mr. Legore’s respective cases

were assigned to District Judge Donald L. Graham. The cases were consolidated for

discovery purposes. [Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 13].

On November 5, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion for a consolidated

settlement conference. [Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 58]. The District Court granted the

joint motion and referred the cases to the Undersigned for an omnibus settlement

conference. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 62; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 61]. A

settlement conference was scheduled for November 12, 2013. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF

No. 65; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 65].

B. The Settlement Conference

Slightly after 8:00 p.m., after 7 hours of negotiations, the parties finally reached a

settlement. The Undersigned and the parties returned to the court where the following

exchange regarding the settlement took place:

The Court:

We are now on the record following a marathon mediation session; an omnibus joint mediation session in two cases involving first the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission versus Bay State Milling Company, which is case 12‐CV‐l4439‐ Judge Graham.

3

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 4 of 21
The second case is the case of Gary Legore versus Bay State Milling Company, case 13‐CV‐14032‐Judge Graham.
We have, for all practical purposes, resolved the financial portion of both cases.
Many of the issues concerning the proposed consent decree have been agreed to, and there are some provisions which still need to be worked out, but because it is now 8:15, what we have decided to do is to dictate the terms of the settlement agreement into the record.
I will get each of you to confirm that this is the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement will be contingent upon a successful resolution of the consent decree which was requested by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.
So, first, I am going to just summarize the terms of the settlement, and then we will get everybody to agree. And if, in fact, things work out, as I am confidant [sic] that they will, and that there is a resolution of the remaining issues on the consent decree, then everything that we dictate into the record here today will in and of itself be a full, binding and enforceable settlement agreement.
So once everybody is on board with what I say and agree to it, that will be the settlement agreement, subject to successful agreement on the consent decree.
You are [sic] all are free later on to generate additional paperwork to memorialize the settlement agreement, but what we are going to do here today on the record will in and of itself be an enforceable settlement agreement.
4

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 5 of 21

Mr. Santoro: The Court: Mr. Rayola: The Court: Ms. Mevers: The Court:
Ms. Schwartz: The Court:

The settlement agreement will be for both cases combined. The defendant will be paying $150,000 which will include attorneys’ fees and costs. And, in addition, the defendant will be agreeing to a consent decree.
. . .
So, first, from the prospective [sic] of the defense, Bay State Milling Company, first, let me ask counsel, Mr. Santoro, is that a fair and accurate summary of the settlement agreement as you understand it?
It is, Your Honor, contingent on the ability to agree to the consent decree and the terms of a mutual general release.
Fine. And let me also ask the representative of Bay State Milling Company, Mr. Rayola, is that, in fact, what you have agreed to this evening?
Yes, Your Honor.
And on behalf of the insurance carrier, Ms. Mevers, you are on board and you agree to what we have just outlined in the record?
Yes, Your Honor.
All right. Very well. And although I only need to hear normally from one lawyer per side, not to leave you out, Ms. Schwartz, since you did a lot of hard work in this case, is this, in fact, the agreement from your perspective?
Yes, Your Honor.
All right. Very well. Now, from the individual plaintiff’s perspective, Mr. Legore, is this, in fact, what you have agreed to?
5

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 6 of 21

Mr. Legore:

Yes, it is.

The Court:

And, Mr. Schofield, as Mr. Legoreʹs counsel, is this, in fact, what you have agreed to?

Mr. Schofield: It is, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Court:

Very well. And from the perspective of the EEOC, first let me hear from Ms. Golson. Is this, in fact, as counsel what you have agreed to?

Ms. Golson:

Yes. It is what we have agreed to.

The Court:

And as a representative of the EEOC. Ms. McCoy, is this, in fact, what you have agreed to?

Ms. McCoy:

Yes, Your Honor

[Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 77, pp. 9‐11 (emphasis added); Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No.

86, pp. 9‐11 (emphasis added)].

Thus, at the end of the marathon settlement conference the settlement was clear

and unambiguous: Bay State would pay Mr. Legore $150,000, inclusive of attorney’s

fees and costs, to settle both lawsuits. The only contingency was Bay State and EEOC’s

agreement to the terms of a consent decree. As will be explained, the efforts by the

parties and their counsel to implement this straightforward settlement was anything

but clear.

6

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 7 of 21
C. Post‐Settlement Conference Developments The post‐settlement conference developments are numerous and have helped muddy the record in these cases. The Undersigned will attempt to set them out in as cohesive and logical fashion as possible.
1. Mr. Legore’s Ex Parte “Buyer’s Remorse” Emails to the Undersigned Three days after the November 12, 2013 settlement conference, Mr. Legore sent ex parte emails to the Undersigned’s e‐file inbox. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF Nos. 67; 68; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF Nos. 67; 68]. In these emails, Mr. Legore claimed that the settlement was not in his best interest because he did not know that his attorney had signed the joint motion for a settlement conference and that he was tired and fatigued when he agreed to the settlement. [Id.]. As the Undersigned has previously noted, “the substance of Mr. Legore’s filings is what might be informally called ‘buyer’s remorse.’” [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 67, p. 3; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 67, p. 3]. All of Mr. Legore’s complaints were not raised at the settlement conference, where he unequivocally agreed to the settlement.
2. Mr. Legore and Bay State Sign a Settlement Agreement Notwithstanding his emails to the Undersigned, Mr. Legore and Bay State both signed a settlement agreement to settle his private lawsuit. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 81, p. 4; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 90, p. 4]. According to counsel, under that settlement agreement (which was not provided to the court) Bay State would pay Mr.
7

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 8 of 21
Legore $150,000 in three payments of $50,000 in exchange for the settlement of his private lawsuit. According to counsel, that settlement agreement, however, makes no mention of the EEOC’s consent decree. As will be seen shortly, the relevance of this final point cannot be understated.
3. The Consent Decree is Resolved On November 22, 2013, the EEOC and Bay State submitted a joint motion for approval of a consent decree. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 69]. As noted, an agreement to a consent decree was the only contingency of the $150,000 settlement. The District Court entered the party‐proposed consent decree. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 70]. Among other things, the consent decree provided that Bay State would pay Mr. Legore $80,185.66, in two payments of $40,092.83, to settle the EEOC’s lawsuit. [Id. at pp. 4‐5]. The party‐drafted consent decree, however, neither mentioned Mr. Legore’s private lawsuit nor the $150,000 settlement reached at the settlement conference. Stated another way, there is nothing in the consent decree that indicates that the $80,185.66 due under the consent decree was to be offset against the overall $150,000 settlement reached at the settlement conference.
4. The January 22, 2014 Status Conference Bay State moved for a status conference to address certain issues that had arisen regarding the settlement. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 72; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 77]. In sum, although Mr. Legore signed the settlement agreement he refused to sign a
8

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 9 of 21
W‐9 form for tax purposes and refused to accept the check sent to him by Bay State. [Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 78]. In addition, Mr. Legore’s counsel had moved to withdraw because of their differences regarding the settlement.
At the status conference, the Undersigned discussed a number of issues with the parties. First, was counsel’s inability to properly memorialize the straightforward settlement reached at the settlement conference. On one hand, under the settlement agreement, Bay State was obligated to pay Mr. Legore with three $50,000 checks. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 90, pp. 16‐17; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 94, pp. 16‐17]. On the other hand, under the consent decree, Bay State was required to pay Mr. Legore two payments of $40,092.83 for a total of $80,185.66. [Id. at pp. 6‐12]. Incredibly, neither agreement mentioned the other. [Id. at pp. 18, 25‐27]. As a consequence, Bay State was under the assumption that its three $50,000 payments to Mr. Legore satisfied its obligations under both the settlement agreement and the consent decree. [Id. at p. 27]. The EEOC assumed that Bay State would pay Mr. Legore the $80,185.66 in the consent decree in the specific manner set out in the consent decree and would pay the remaining $69,843.34 under some unspecified terms under the settlement agreement. [Id. at pp. 12‐16].
Second, the Undersigned discussed the amount of the settlement. Notwithstanding the difference as to how Bay State’s payments were to be made, the EEOC, Bay State’s counsel and its representative, and Mr. Legore’s counsel all agreed
9

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 10 of 21
that the total settlement amount was $150,000 – as announced at the settlement conference. [Id. at pp. 17, 20]. After hearing the discussion regarding the differences as to Bay State’s payments, Mr. Legore took the position that he was entitled to $150,000 under the settlement agreement plus the $80,185.66 under the consent decree, for a total of $230,185.66. [Id. at pp. 17‐18]. Despite his numerous “buyer’s remorse” emails, this was the first time Mr. Legore had asserted that he was owed $230,185.66. [Id.].
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Undersigned granted the parties’ ore tenus motion to seal the transcript of the settlement conference. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 76; 13‐14032, ECF No. 83]. The Undersigned also granted Mr. Legore’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and gave Mr. Legore 30 days to retain new counsel and for his new counsel to explain Mr. Legore’s position regarding the total amount of the settlement, i.e., $150,000 versus $230,185.66. [Case No. 13‐14032, ECF Nos. 81; 94, pp. 6‐9, 21, 32]. Finally, the Undersigned noted that despite the parties’ differences regarding the settlement no party had filed a motion to vacate or enforce the settlement. [Case No. 13‐ 14032, ECF No. 94, pp. 21, 30].
10

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 11 of 21

D. The Instant Motions

1. Mr. Legore’s Motion to Vacate and Bay State’s Motion to Enforce

On March 5, 2014, Mr. Legore, proceeding pro se,2 moved to vacate the

settlement. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 78; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 87]. In his

motion, Mr. Legore reiterates his newfound claim that the settlement was for

$230,185.66, composed of the $80,185.66 to resolve the EEOC’s case and the $150,000 to

resolve his private lawsuit. [Id.]. As such, Mr. Legore argues that no agreement was

reached at the settlement conference, just confusion, and that the settlement should be

vacated. [Id.].

Bay State opposes Mr. Legore’s motion. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 81; Case

No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 90]. Bay State notes that Mr. Legore agreed to the terms of the

$150,000 settlement on the record and again when he signed the settlement agreement.

[Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 81, pp. 6‐7; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 90, pp. 6‐7]. As a

result, Bay State contends that Mr. Legore cannot now repudiate the terms of the

settlement. Accordingly, Bay State requests that the court deny Mr. Legore’s motion and

enforce the settlement by having Mr. Legore execute the W‐9 form and awarding it

attorney’s fees. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 81, p. 7; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 90, p.

7].

2

Since the filing of his motion, Mr. Legore has contacted the Undersigned’s

chambers on numerous occasions to advise the law clerk assigned to this case that he

would be retaining counsel shortly. However, despite these representations, no new

counsel has ever appeared on his behalf.

11

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 12 of 21
2. The EEOC’s Response to Mr. Legore’s Motion to Vacate and Bay State’s Motion to Enforce and the EEOC’s Cross‐Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree
The EEOC agrees with Bay State that the total amount of the settlement was $150,000, not $230,185.66 and that Mr. Legore’s motion should be denied. [Case No. 12‐ 14439, ECF No. 85, pp. 3‐5, 7]. The EEOC also argues that to the extent he is trying to do so, Mr. Legore does not have standing to move to vacate the consent decree. [Id. at pp. 5‐7].
The EEOC, however, opposes Bay State’s motion to enforce the settlement and filed a cross‐motion to require Bay State to demonstrate compliance with the consent decree. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 86]. In particular, the EEOC opposes Bay State’s request to enforce the signed settlement agreement because Bay State had not set out what particular terms it was trying to enforce. [Id. at p. 4]. The EEOC also opposes Bay State’s request for attorney’s fees because Bay State did not state the legal basis for its entitlement to attorney’s fees. [Id. at p. 4]. As for its cross‐motion, the EEOC seeks an evidentiary hearing so that Bay State can demonstrate it is complying with the consent decree. [Id. at pp. 4‐5].
Bay State opposes the EEOC’s cross motion. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 88]. Bay State characterizes the EEOC’s cross‐motion as an improper attempt to discover the terms of the signed settlement agreement between Mr. Legore and Bay State. [Id. at pp. 3‐4]. Bay State also points out that the only term of the consent decree it has not
12

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 13 of 21
complied with is the payment terms and that this is because Mr. Legore has refused to sign a W‐9 form, which he is legally required to do. [Id. at pp. 4‐5]. II. DISCUSSION
A. The Transcript of the Settlement Conference is Unsealed The Undersigned granted the parties’ ore tenus request to seal the transcript of the settlement conference because it contained the financial terms of Mr. Legore’s settlement. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 76; 13‐14032, ECF No. 83]. However, now that the very validity of the settlement is directly before the court for resolution, the Undersigned has reconsidered that decision. “[T]he common‐law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). “Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.” Brown v. Advantage Eng’g., Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). “Absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances . . . the court file must remain accessible to the public.” Brown, 960 F.2d at 1016 (reversing district court and ordering unsealing of settlement records which were sealed under court‐monitored settlement). Here, the Undersigned does not find any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the continued sealing of the settlement conference transcript. Medina v.
13

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 14 of 21
United Christian Evangelistic Assʹn of Fla., LLC, No. 08‐22111‐CIV, 2010 WL 5392661 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2010) (declining to seal portions of transcript where parties agreed to settle and defendant company disclosed its finances). To the contrary, the Undersigned finds that “[p]ublic confidence [in our judicial system] cannot long be maintained where important judicial decisions are made behind closed doors and then announced in conclusive terms to the public, with the record supporting the court’s decision sealed from public view.” United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835, 851 (3d Cir. 1978). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to unseal the settlement conference transcript: Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 77; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 86.
B. Mr. Legore’s Motion to Vacate the Settlement Should be Denied and Bay State’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Should be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
Because they are intertwined, the Undersigned will examine Bay State’s motion to enforce the settlement and Mr. Legore’s motion to vacate the settlement together. But before proceeding, the Undersigned makes the following point of clarification. When analyzing whether the settlement should be vacated or enforced, the Undersigned is referring to the settlement announced on the record at the settlement conference. The Undersigned is not referring to the settlement agreement between Mr. Legore and Bay State, as that agreement is not before the court.
14

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 15 of 21
1. Applicable Legal Standard Because the settlement was reached in Florida, the construction and enforcement of the settlement are governed by principles of Florida’s general contract law. Schwartz v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 807 F.2d 901, 905‐06 (11th Cir. 1987); see also Resnick v. Uccello Immobilien GMBH, Inc., 227 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2000) (settlement agreement resolving federal claims still interpreted under Florida law). Florida applies an “objective test” to determine whether a contract, or a settlement, may be duly enforced. See Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985) (noting that the test considers not whether there was an “agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs—not on the parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same”). “To compel enforcement of a settlement agreement, its terms must be sufficiently specific and mutually agreed upon as to every essential element.” Spiegel v. H. Allen Homes, Inc., 834 So. 2d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Oral settlements are enforceable and the execution of a settlement agreement is not a condition precedent to a settlement, but merely a procedural formality. See Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 05‐21338‐CIV, 2007 WL 7756735, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2007); Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
15

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 16 of 21
2. Discussion 1. The Settlement Should Not be Vacated and Should be Enforced
At its core, the terms of the settlement were as follows: The settlement agreement will be for both cases combined. The defendant will be paying $150,000 which will include attorneys’ fees and costs. And, in addition, the defendant will be agreeing to a consent decree. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 77, pp. 10; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 86, p. 10]. All the parties (including Mr. Legore) and their counsel expressed their understanding and agreement to the announced settlement. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 77, pp. 9‐11; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 86, pp. 9‐11]. As a result, the Undersigned finds that the settlement is capable of being enforced because its terms are sufficiently specific and all the parties mutually agreed to the terms. In his instant motion and in his ex parte emails to the Undersigned, Mr. Legore raises two reasons why the settlement should be vacated: fatigue and confusion. The Undersigned does not find either reason persuasive. First, in his emails, Mr. Legore alleged that he was tired and fatigued because of his long travel and the length of the settlement conference. As to the length of the settlement conference, all the parties were operating under the same conditions – not just Mr. Legore. And even when combining the length of the settlement conference with Mr. Legore’s travel to attend the settlement conference, Mr. Legore’s fatigue argument is simply not legally sufficient to justify vacating the settlement. Devoux v. Wise, No.
16

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 17 of 21
3:12‐CV‐540‐J‐34JBT, 2014 WL 1457520, at *5 n. 3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2014) (rejecting plaintiff’s claim that he was under fatigue and duress when he agreed to settlement because of long trip from South Carolina to Jacksonville to attend mediation).
Second, in his motion, Mr. Legore argues that the settlement should be vacated because there was confusion as to whether the settlement was for $230,185.66 or $150,000. Contrary to Mr. Legore’s assertion, there was, and is, no confusion regarding the settlement amount. The record is clear that the settlement is for $150,000 and that Mr. Legore agreed to that amount. Moreover, Mr. Legore’s assertion was belied at the January 22, 2014 status conference when the EEOC, Bay State, and Mr. Legore’s former counsel all stated that the settlement was for $150,000, not $230,185.66. As such, Mr. Legore’s assertion that the settlement was for $230,185.66 is an after‐the‐fact attempt to seize on counsels’ inability to coordinate the written settlement agreement and the consent decree. This leads to the Undersigned’s final point regarding Mr. Legore’s motion to vacate the settlement.
The real gravamen of Mr. Legore’s motion is that he is unhappy with the settlement after agreeing to it. But that unhappiness is not a sufficient basis to vacate the settlement. See Murchison v. Grand Cypress Hotel Corp., 13 F.3d 1483, 1487 (11th Cir. 1994) (denying motion to vacate settlement reached on the record and noting “[w]e cannot allow a litigant to attack the integrity of the settlement process by attempting to
17

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 18 of 21
recharacterize the focus of his litigation after he decides he is unhappy with the settlement.”).
2. How the Settlement Should be Enforced Having found that the settlement should be enforced, the Undersigned next turns to what relief should be granted in enforcing the settlement. In that regard, Bay State wants the court to enforce the settlement by having Mr. Legore execute a W‐9 form and by awarding it attorney’s fees. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 81, p. 7; Case No. 13‐14032, ECF No. 90, p. 7]. As to the former request, “[f]ederal tax regulations require that a company issue a 1099 form with every settlement payment over $600.” Gray v. Collection Info. Bureau, Inc., 823 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (Jordan, J.) (citing 26 C.F.R. § 1.6041–1(f)). “To issue a 1099 form,” Bay State needs Mr. Legore’s taxpayer identification number (“TIN”) or social security number. Id. Accordingly, Bay State’s request for Mr. Legore to execute a W‐9 form and, therefore, provide his TIN or social security number should be granted. See McCormick v. Brzezinski, No. 08‐10075, 2010 WL 1463176, at *3, *7‐8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2010) (denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate settlement reached on the record based on allegations of duress and misrepresentation and requiring plaintiff to provide her social security number to defendant).
18

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 19 of 21

As to Bay State’s request for attorney’s fees, Bay State did not provide any legal

basis for this request. Accordingly, the Undersigned recommends that this request be

denied.

C. The EEOC’s Cross‐Motion Should be Denied

In its cross‐motion, the EEOC seeks an evidentiary hearing so that Bay State can

demonstrate compliance with the consent decree. [Case No. 12‐14439, ECF No. 86, at pp.

4‐5]. This request should be denied.

In its motion, the EEOC identified only one provision that Bay State has failed to

comply with: the payment provision. The reason for Bay State’s non‐compliance is not

because it is unwilling or unable to pay. To the contrary, Bay State previously sent some

checks to Mr. Legore’s former counsel. Rather it is Mr. Legore’s refusal to provide his

social security number – as he is legally required to do – that has prevented Bay State

from paying. If the District Court adopts the Undersigned’s recommendation that Mr.

Legore provide that information, then Bay State’s non‐compliance with this provision of

the consent decree will become moot. 3

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Undersigned orders that the transcript of the

settlement be unsealed by the Clerk of the Court. The Undersigned respectfully

recommends to the District Court that it:

3

Of course, if Bay State refuses or delays in paying Mr. Legore, then the EEOC or

Mr. Legore may file a motion with the court.

19

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 20 of 21 (1) deny Mr. Legore’s Motion to Vacate the Settlement; (2) grant in part and deny in part Bay State’s motion to Enforce the Settlement
by: (i) ordering Mr. Legore to execute a W‐9 form; (ii) requiring Bay State to, as soon as practicable, pay Mr. Legore after he provides Bay State with his W‐9 form; and (iii) denying Bay State’s request for attorney’s fees; and
(3) deny the EEOC’s cross‐motion.
20

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2014 Page 21 of 21
IV. OBJECTIONS Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), the parties have
14 days from the date of this Report and Recommendations to serve and file written objections, if any, with the District Court. Each party may file a response to the other party’s objection within 7 days of the objection. Failure to timely file objections shall bar any party from a de novo determination by the District Court of an issue covered in this Report and bar the party from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained herein. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749‐50 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, July 25, 2014.
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Donald L. Graham The Honorable Frank J. Lynch, Jr. All Counsel of Record Gary Mr. Legore, pro se 9495 Rye Creek, Rd. Lonedell, Missouri 63060
21

 
 Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT . PIERCE DIVISION

Case NO. 12-14439-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMANl

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM ISSION ,

Plaintiff,

VS .

BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY,

Defendant .
/
Case No. l3-14O32-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMAN
GARY LEGORE ,

Plaintiff ,

VS .

BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY ,

Defendant .

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon

Magistrate Judge

Jonathan Goodman 's Order and Omnibus Report and Recommendation on

Cross-Motions Regarding Vacating or Enforcing Settlement. Ecase No .

12-14439, D.E. 9l; Case No . 13-14032, D .E. 95)

Although U.S. Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. is the magistrate judge
assigned to cases appearing in the Ft . Pierce Division, the Court specifically referred these related cases to U .S . Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman to conduct a settlement conference and for a report and recommendation on the subsequent issues raised concerning the settlement conference .
1

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 2 of 6

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable United States

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 5 636 and

the Magistrate Rules for the Southern District of Florida. Ecase

No . 12-14439, D .E . 79; Case No . 13-14032 , D .E .

Judge Goodman

has issued a Report and Recommendation Ecase No . 12-14439, D .E. 91;

Case No . 13-14032,

951(the ''Magistrate Judge's Report'') for

this Court 's consideration recommending that the Court :

(l) deny Mr. Legore's motion to vacate the settlement; (2) grant in part and deny in part Bay State's motion to enforce settlement by : (i) ordering Mr. Legore to execute a W-9 form ; (ii) requiring Bay State to, as soon as practicable , pay Mr . Legore after he provides Bay State
with his W-9 form ; and (iii) denying Bay State's request for attorney 's fees, and (3) deny the EEOC'S cross-
motion .

(Case No. 12-14439, D .E. 91 at 19-20; Case No. 13-14032, D.E. at

19-201.

Pursuant to 28 U .S.C . 5636(b)(l) and Local Magistrate Rule

4 (a), the Parties had fourteen (14) days after being served with a

copy of the Magistrate Judge 's Report to serve and file written

objections, any, with the Court. Mr. Legore is the only party

to timely file written objections. Ecase No. 12-14439,
Case No . 13-14032, D .E. 98). The Court has not received any

responses to Mr. Legore's objections and the time to do so has
passed . A s such , this matter is now ripe for the Court's rev iew .

Accordingly , the Court ''shall make a 4. novo determination of

those portions of the report of specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. EThe Court) may accept,

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 3 of 6

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'' 28 U.S.C. 5636
(b)(1)(C). Thus, the Court is required to ugive fresh consideration

to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a

party .'' Jeffrey S. v . State Bd . Of Educw 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th

Cir. 1990). Additionally,

EA) party that wishes to preserve its objection must
clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the
specific findings that the party disagrees with . . .
This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges
to spend more time on matters actually contested and
produces a result compatible w ith the purposes of the
Magistrates Act .

Brown v . U .S., 2013 WL 4482494, (N .D . Ga . 2013)(quoting U.S. v .

Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2009)). However,

%'Efqrivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be
considered by the district court .'' Marsden v . Moore , 847 F .2d 1536,

1548 (11th Cir. 1988).

Upon review , the Court notes that Mr . Legore does not make any

specific objections regarding the findings of fact or law in the

Magistrate Judge's Report. Mr. Legore simply avers that ''Ei)t is

obvious there was no meetings of the minds total agreement (sic)

settlement negotiations or at the status conference hearing January

22nd, 2014

and includes unrelated statements regarding the

dismissal of his attorney and his inability

obtain gainful

employment because of these pending actions. Ecase No. 12-14439,

D.E. Case No. 13-14032, D.E.

Mr. Legore's objections do

3

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 4 of 6

not include any additional information or citation

legal

authority beyond the aforementioned general and conclusory

statements. Consequently, Mr. Legore's objections will not be
considered by the Court . Marsden , 847 F .2d at 1548 .

Ev en

for arguments sake , the Court were to consider Mr .

Legore 's general statement concerning the settlement conference as

a specific objection, the record belies his argument that there was
no meeting of the minds . Specifically , Judge Goodman noted the

enforceable nature

the oral settlement agreement, carefully

outlined its terms for the record , and considered each party 's

position regarding acceptance. Ecase No. 12-14439, D .E . at 9-11;

Case No. 13-14032, D.E . 86 at 9-11). With respect to Mr. Legore's

position , an excerpt from the transcript of the settlement

conference reads as follows :

THE COURT :

You are all free later on to generate additional paperwork to memorialize the settlement agreement, but what we are going to do here today on the record will in and of itself be an enforceable settlement agreement .

The settlement agreement will be for b0th cases combined . The defendant will be
paying $150,000 which will include
attorneys' fees and costs . And , in addition , the defendant will be agreeing to a consent decree .
* **

THE COURT :

All right . Very well . Now , from the individual plaintiff's perspective , Mr . Legore , is this , in fact, what you have agreed to?

4

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 5 of 6

MR . LEGORE : Yes , it is .

Id . Thus , the record shows that Mr . Legore unequivocally understood

and agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement . As a result,

had Mr. Legore specifically objected on this point, his objection
would be overru led . Accordingly , it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Case

No. 12-14439, D .E . 91; Case No . 13-14032, D .E. 95) is AFFIRMED,

ADOPTED, AND RATIFIED in its entirety and is incorporated into this

Order by reference . It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Gary Legore's Motions to Vacate

Settlement Ecase No. 12-14439, D .E . 78; Case No. 13-14032, D .E. 871
are DENIED on the grounds stated herein and in the Magistrate

Judge's Report . It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Bay State Milling Company 's

incorporated Motion to Enforce Settlement Ecase No . 13-14032, D .E.

9O; 91) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

Gary Legore is hereby ORDERED to fully execute an

IRS Form W -9 and return the same Milling Company 's counsel within ten

Bay State days from

the entry of this Order;

Upon receipt of the fully executed Form

from

Gary Legore, Bay State Milling Company shall

forward the net settlement proceeds to Gary

5

Case 2:12-cv-14439-DLG Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 6 of 6

Legore 's address on record forthwith ; and Bay State Milling Company 's request for attorneys'

fees and costs is DENIED . It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission 's incorporated Cross-Motion Requesting Bay State Milling

Company to Demonstrate Compliance with the Consent Decree Ecase No .

12-144 39 ,

86) is DENIED .

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, o 'da, this /

of August, 2014 .

DONALD L . GRAHAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc : U .S . Magistrate Judge Goodman
Counsel of Record
Gary Legore, Pro 54 9495 Rye Creek Road
Lonedell, MO 63060

6

 
 Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: GARY LEGORE,
Plaintiff
v.
BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation,
Defendant.
----------------------~/
COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, GARY LEGORE, [hereinafter referred to as "LEGORE"] by and through his by and through his undersigned attorney, and hereby files this amended complaint against Defendant, BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY [hereinafter referred to as "BAY STATE"] and as grounds therefore alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE 1. This matter in controversy concerns violation of Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla.Stat
§760, et.seq. ["FCRA"], failure to hire. 2. This is an action for damages and is brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights
Act, Fla.Stat §760, et.seq. ["FCRA"] 3. This court has original jurisdiction over this matter insofar as the matter involves
a federal question, namely violation of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. §760.1 0. 4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff maintained a residence in Maryland and in Florida.
Cathleen Scott & Associates, P.A. Complaint Page 1 of 6

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 2 of 6
5. Defendant, BAY STATE is a foreign profit corporation with a principal address of 100 Congress Street, 2nd Floor, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 with a facility in Martin County, Florida.
6. Martin County, Florida is proper venue for this action in that the subject matter of this action occurred there, namely Plaintiff applied for a position with the Defendant to work in Martin County, Florida.
7. Plaintiff is an employee as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla.Stat §760, et.seq. ["FCRA"].
8. Defendant is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla.Stat §760, et.seq. [UFCRA"]. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
9. Plaintiff contends that he has exhausted all administrative remedies, prior to the filing of this action.
1O.ln particular, Plaintiff on or about January 2011, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. (See a true and correct copy
of the Letter of Determination dated April 23, 2012 attached hereto as Exhibit "A")
11.lt has been more than one-hundred eighty (180) days since the filing of Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination.
12. The Florida Commission on Human Relations has not made any determinations as it relates to Plaintiff's charge.
Cathleen Scott & Associates, P.A. Complaint Page 2 of6

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 3 of 6
COMMON ALLEGATIONS 13. Bay State Milling owns and operates a flour mill facility located in Indiantown,
Florida. 14. Bay State Milling posted on its website a vacancy for a Miller-Milling Experience
for the Indiantown, Florida location. 15. The job duties of the position included supervision hourly plant employees as it
relates to regulatory and manufacturing practices, training for safety, operational procedures and manufacturing procedures. 16. On or about January 10, 2011, Plaintiff sent a copy of his resume to William Raiola, the Indiantown Plant Manager. 17. On or about January 11, 2011, Plaintiff contacted Mr. Raiola to discuss the vacancy and arrange a time for an interview. 18. During this call Plaintiff also advised Mr. Raiola that he had more than twenty (20) years of experience in the milling industry. 19.1n response, Mr. Raiola stated "I don't want to waste your time," "I am looking for a younger man with maybe two years experience." Someone he could "groom for a plant manager job down the line and for the future". 20. He further responded that Plaintiff would not be considered for the position. 21. Plaintiff is a fifty four (54) year old man who was previously employed as a Miller in the Bay State Milling facility in Clifton, New Jersey. 22.ln response Plaintiff asked Mr. Raiola to repeat himself and when he reiterated the same, the conversation ended.
Cathleen Scott & Associates, PA Complaint Page 3 of 6

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 4 of 6
23. While previously employed with Bay State, Plaintiff performed his duties and responsibilities in an exemplary manner and was a well-regarded employee.
24. After his conversation with Mr. Raiola, Plaintiff contacted Human Resources to apprise them of Mr. Railoa's discriminatory comments.
25. Human Resources admitted that Mr. Raiola wanted a "younger" person for the Miller position, however Mr. Raiola was not referring to age but rather years of experience.
26. Further, Bay State deemed Plaintiff as overqualified for the position due to his experience.
27. On or about April 15, 2011, Bay State Milling filled the Indiantown, Florida position with a twenty-three (23) year old with little experience.
28.As a result of Defendant's discriminatory practice, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages. COUNT I-AGE DISCRIMINATION, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 760 FAILURE TO HIRE Plaintiff LEGORE rea lieges and references each and every allegation contained
in the preceding paragraphs1 through 28, and incorporates the same as if set forth fully herein.
29. This is an action for damages as a result of discriminatory treatment and failure to hire brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. §760.10.
30. By and through its agents, supervisors and employees, Defendant engaged in and otherwise permitted a pattern and practice of unlawful age discrimination on
Cathleen Scott & Associates, P.A. Complaint Page 4 of 6

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 5 of 6
the basis of his age. 31. By and through its agents, supervisors and employees, Defendant engaged in
and otherwise permitted a pattern and practice of unlawful age discrimination by failing to re-hire Plaintiff. 32.As a result of the aforementioned conduct as alleged in this Count, Defendant violated the FCRA. 33. As a result of the aforementioned conduct and treatment of Plaintiff LEGORE, he has sustained a loss of earnings and other damages. 34. As a result of the aforementioned actions of Defendant, Plaintiff LEGORE has suffered severe emotional distress. 35. Defendant has failed to comply with its statutory duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate discrimination from the work place and to prevent it from occurring. 36.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's, willful, knowing and intentional discrimination, Plaintiff LEGORE has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, extreme and severe emotional distress and mental anguish; Plaintiff LEGORE has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment related benefits and job opportunities. As a result, Plaintiff LEGORE is thereby entitled to general and compensatory damages as well as punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 37.As a further direct and proximate result of the Defendant's violations as herein described, Plaintiff LEGORE has been compelled to retain the services of the undersigned law firm. Plaintiff LEGORE has incurred and will continue to incur
Cathleen Scott & Associates, P.A. Complaint Page 5 of6

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/25/2013 Page 6 of 6

reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff requests that his attorney's fees

be awarded pursuant to Fla. State §760.11 (6).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered in his favor against the

Defendant as follows: That Plaintiff LEGORE be awarded general and compensatory

damages and reinstatement, front pay and back pay, and prejudgment interest and

punitive damages; that Plaintiff LEGORE be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and

costs pursuant to Florida Statute §760.11 (6); that Plaintiff LEGORE be awarded such

other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all matters so triable.

r25 Dated this

V day of January 2013.

..

@~

Cathleen Scott, Esq. Florida Bar No. 135331 Primary e-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com Secondary e-mail: mail@floridalaborlawyer.com Lindsey Wagner, Esq. Florida Bar No. 86831 Primary e-mail: LWagner@csapalaw.com Secondary e-mail: mail@floridalaborlawyer.com CATHLEEN SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Jupiter Gardens 250 South Central Boulevard Suite 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 Secondary Address: 101 Northpoint Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33407 www.FloridaLaborLawyer.com

Cathleen Scott & Associates, P.A. Complaint Page 6 of 6

 
 Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 13-Civ-14032-GRAHAM/LYNCH GARY LEGORE, Plaintiff v. BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY, a foreign profit corporation, Defendant. ____________________________/
AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NO W, t he Plaintiff, GARY L EGORE, [hereinafter r eferred t o as “LEGORE”] by and t hrough hi s by and t hrough hi s under signed a ttorney, and her eby files t his Amended C omplaint ag ainst Defendant, BAY ST ATE MILLING C OMPANY [hereinafter referred to as “BAY STATE”] and as grounds therefore alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE 1. This matter in controversy concerns violation of Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla.Stat
§760, et.seq. [“FCRA”], failure to hire. 2. This is an action for damages and is brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights
Act, Fla.Stat §760, et.seq. [“FCRA”] 3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff maintained a r esidence in Maryland and i n
Florida. 4. Defendant, BAY STATE is a foreign profit corporation with a principal address of
100 C ongress S treet, 2nd Floor, Q uincy, M assachusetts 0 2169 w ith a facility i n Martin County, Florida.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 2 of 8
5. Martin County, Florida is proper venue for this action in that the subject matter of this action oc curred t here, na mely Plaintiff appl ied f or a pos ition with the Defendant to work in Martin County, Florida.
6. Plaintiff is an employee as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla.Stat §760, et.seq. [“FCRA”].
7. Defendant is an e mployer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla.Stat §760, et.seq. [“FCRA”]. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
8. Plaintiff contends that he has exhausted all administrative remedies, prior to the filing of this action.
9. In p articular, Plaintiff on or a bout January 2011, P laintiff filed a C harge of Discrimination w ith t he E qual Employment Opportunity C ommission, as w ell as with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
10. It has been more than one-hundred eighty (180) days since the filing of Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination.
11. The Florida Commission on H uman Relations has not made any determinations as it relates to Plaintiff’s charge. COMMON ALLEGATIONS
12. Bay S tate M illing o wns and op erates a flour m ill f acility l ocated i n I ndiantown, Florida.
13. Bay State Milling posted on i ts website a v acancy for a M iller-Milling Experience for the Indiantown, Florida location.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 3 of 8
14. The job duties of the position included supervision hourly plant employees as it relates to regulatory and m anufacturing practices, training for safety, operational procedures and manufacturing procedures.
15. On or abo ut J anuary 10, 20 11, P laintiff s ent a c opy of hi s r esume t o William Raiola, the Indiantown Plant Manager.
16. On or ab out J anuary 11, 2 011, P laintiff c ontacted M r. R aiola t o di scuss t he vacancy and arrange a time for an interview.
17. During t his c all P laintiff also a dvised M r. R aiola t hat h e ha d m ore t han t wenty (20) years of experience in the milling industry.
18. In response, Mr. Raiola stated “I don’t want to waste your time,” “I am looking for a younger m an with maybe t wo years experience.” Someone h e c ould “ groom for a plant manager job down the line and for the future”.
19. He further responded that Plaintiff would not be considered for the position. 20. Plaintiff is a fifty four (54) year old man who was previously employed as a Miller
in the Bay State Milling facility in Clifton, New Jersey. 21. In response P laintiff asked Mr. Raiola to repeat himself and when he r eiterated
the same, the conversation ended. 22. While pr eviously em ployed w ith B ay S tate, P laintiff performed his dut ies and
responsibilities in an exemplary manner and was a well-regarded employee. 23. After hi s c onversation w ith M r. R aiola, P laintiff c ontacted Defendant’s Human
Resources office and a Vice President of Defendant, Mike Long, to apprise them of M r. R ailoa’s di scriminatory c omments and c omplaining o f t he di scriminatory position taken by Mr. Raiola.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 4 of 8
24. Human R esources a dmitted t hat M r. R aiola w anted a “ younger” person for t he Miller pos ition, however M r. R aiola w as n ot r eferring t o age b ut r ather y ears of experience.
25. On t he v ery s ame d ay t hat P laintiff c omplained o f t he di scrimination, M r. Lo ng made it clear to Human Resources that Plaintiff should not be considered for any position within the company and characterized him as “dangerous.”
26. Plaintiff was subsequently offer interviews for other positions with the Defendant but was denied employment with any one position.
27. On or about A pril 15 , 2011 , B ay S tate M illing f illed t he I ndiantown, F lorida position with a twenty-three (23) year old with little experience.
28. As a r esult of D efendant’s discriminatory and r etaliatory practices, P laintiff h as suffered and will continue to suffer damages. COUNT I – AGE DISCRIMINATION, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 760 FAILURE TO HIRE Plaintiff LEGORE realleges and references each and every allegation contained
in the preceding paragraphs1 through 28, and incorporates the same as if set forth fully herein.
29. This is an ac tion for damages as a result of discriminatory treatment and failure to hire brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. §760.10.
30. By and t hrough i ts ag ents, s upervisors and em ployees, D efendant eng aged i n and otherwise permitted a pattern and practice of unlawful age discrimination on the basis of his age.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 5 of 8
31. By and t hrough i ts ag ents, s upervisors and em ployees, D efendant eng aged i n and otherwise permitted a pattern and practice of unlawful age discrimination by failing to re-hire Plaintiff.
32. As a r esult of t he a forementioned c onduct as al leged i n t his C ount, D efendant violated the FCRA.
33. As a r esult o f t he a forementioned c onduct and t reatment o f Plaintiff L EGORE, he has sustained a loss of earnings and other damages.
34. As a r esult o f t he a forementioned actions o f D efendant, Plaintiff LEGORE has suffered severe emotional distress.
35. Defendant has failed to comply with its statutory duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate discrimination from the work place and to prevent it from occurring.
36. As a direct a nd proximate r esult o f D efendant’s, willful, knowing and i ntentional discrimination, Plaintiff LEGORE has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, ex treme an d s evere em otional di stress and m ental an guish; P laintiff LEGORE h as s uffered and w ill c ontinue t o s uffer a l oss o f earnings and ot her employment related benefits and job opportunities. As a result, Plaintiff LEGORE is t hereby ent itled t o general and c ompensatory dam ages as w ell as puni tive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
37. As a further di rect an d pr oximate r esult o f t he D efendant’s v iolations as h erein described, P laintiff LEGORE has be en c ompelled to r etain t he s ervices of t he undersigned law f irm. P laintiff LEGORE has incurred and will continue to incur reasonable attorney’s f ees and c osts. P laintiff requests that hi s a ttorney’s f ees
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 6 of 8
be awarded pursuant to Fla. State §760.11(6). WHEREFORE, P laintiff pr ays t hat j udgment be ent ered i n hi s favor ag ainst t he Defendant as f ollows: That Plaintiff LEGORE be aw arded g eneral and c ompensatory damages and r einstatement, front pay and bac k pay , and pr ejudgment i nterest a nd punitive da mages; t hat P laintiff LEGORE be aw arded r easonable attorney’s f ees and costs pur suant t o F lorida S tatute §7 60.11(6); t hat P laintiff LEGORE be aw arded s uch other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II – RETALIATION, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 760 FAILURE TO HIRE
Plaintiff LEGORE realleges and references each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs1 through 28, and incorporates the same as if set forth fully herein.
38. This i s a n ac tion for damages as a r esult o f retaliatory treatment and f ailure to hire br ought p ursuant to t he F lorida C ivil R ights A ct of 1992 ( FCRA), F la. S tat. §760.10.
39. By and t hrough i ts ag ents, s upervisors and em ployees, D efendant eng aged i n and o therwise per mitted a p attern an d pr actice o f unl awful retaliation f ollowing Plaintiff’s complaint that he w as being discriminated against ion on the basis of his age.
40. By and t hrough i ts ag ents, s upervisors and em ployees, D efendant eng aged i n and otherwise permitted a pattern and practice of unlawful retaliation by failing to hire Plaintiff.
41. As a r esult of t he a forementioned c onduct as al leged i n t his C ount, D efendant
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 7 of 8
violated the FCRA. 42. As a r esult o f t he a forementioned c onduct and t reatment of P laintiff LEGORE,
he has sustained a loss of earnings and other damages. 43. As a r esult o f t he a forementioned actions o f D efendant, Plaintiff LEGORE has
suffered severe emotional distress. 44. Defendant has failed to comply with its statutory duty to take all reasonable and
necessary steps to eliminate discrimination from the work place and to prevent it from occurring. 45. As a direct a nd proximate r esult o f D efendant’s, willful, knowing and intentional discrimination, Plaintiff LEGORE has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, ex treme an d s evere em otional di stress and m ental an guish; P laintiff LEGORE h as s uffered and w ill c ontinue t o s uffer a l oss o f earnings and ot her employment related benefits and job opportunities. As a result, Plaintiff LEGORE is t hereby ent itled t o general and c ompensatory dam ages as w ell as puni tive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 46. As a further di rect an d pr oximate r esult o f t he D efendant’s v iolations as h erein described, P laintiff L EGORE has be en c ompelled to r etain t he s ervices of t he undersigned law f irm. P laintiff LEGORE has incurred and will continue to incur reasonable attorney’s f ees and c osts. P laintiff requests that hi s a ttorney’s f ees be awarded pursuant to Fla. State §760.11(6). WHEREFORE, P laintiff pr ays t hat j udgment be ent ered i n hi s favor ag ainst t he Defendant as f ollows: That Plaintiff LEGORE be aw arded g eneral and c ompensatory damages and r einstatement, front pay and b ack pay , and pr ejudgment i nterest a nd
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2013 Page 8 of 8
punitive da mages; t hat P laintiff LEGORE be aw arded r easonable attorney’s f ees and costs pur suant t o F lorida S tatute §7 60.11(6); t hat P laintiff LEGORE be aw arded s uch other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all matters so triable.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I H EREBY C ERTIFY t hat a c opy o f t he foregoing was s ent v ia t he E lectronic Document F iling S ystem to: J ennifer A . Schwartz, E sq., J ACKSON LE WIS, LLP, O ne Biscayne Tower, 2 S outh Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500, Miami, Florida 33131-2374, jennifer.schwartz@jacksonlewis.com, Counsel f or D efendant B ay S tate M illing, and Aarrin G olson, Esq., U .S. E qual E mployment O pportunity C ommission, M iami D istrict Office, M iami Tower, 10 0 S E 2 nd Street, 1 5th Floor, Mi ami, F lorida 33 131, aarrin.golson@eeoc.gov, Counsel for the EEOC, on this 23rd day of August 2013.
/s/ Arthur Schofield, Esq. ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. Via Jardin Building 330 Clematis Street, Suit 207 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 655-4211 Fax: (561) 655-5447 Fla. Bar No. 984434 aschofield@flalabor.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF LEGORE
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A. │Via Jardin │ 330 Clematis Street │Suite 207 │ West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 655-4211 │ Facsimile (561) 655-5447 www.flalabor.com

 
 Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT . PIERCE DIVISION
Case No. l2-l4439-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMANl
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION , Plaintiff ,
VS .
BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY , Defendant .
/ Case No. 13-14O32-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMAN
GARY LEGORE , Plaintiff ,
VS .
BAY STATE MILLING COMPANY , Defendant .
/
ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon U .S . Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman 's Order and Omnibus Report and Recommendation on
Cross-Motions Regarding Vacating or Enforcing Settlement. (Case No . 12-14439, D.E. 91; Case No . 13-14032, D .E. 95)
l Although U . S. Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. is the magistrate judge
assigned to cases appearing in the Ft . Pierce Division, the Court specifically referred these related cases to U .S . Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman to conduct a settlement conference and for a report and recommendation on the subsequent issues raised concerning the settlement conference .

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 2 of 6

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorab le United States

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 5 636 and

the Magistrate Rules for the Southern District of Florida . Ecase

No . 12-14439, D .E . 79; Case No . 13-14032 , D .E .

Judge Goodman

has issued a Report and Recommendation Ecase No . 12-14439, D.E. 91;

Case No. 13-14032,

95)(the ''Magistrate Judge's Report'') for

this Court 's consideration recommending that the Court :

(1) deny Mr. Legore's motion to vacate the settlement; (2) grant in part and deny in part Bay State's motion to enforce settlement by: (i) ordering Mr. Legore to execute a W-9 form ; (ii) requiring Bay State to, as soon as
practicable , pay Mr . Legore after he provides Bay State
with his W-9 form; and (iii) denying Bay State's request for attorney's fees, and (3) deny the EEOC'S cross-
motion .

Ecase No . 12-14439, D.E . 91 at 19-207 Case No . 13-14032, D .E. 95 at

19-20).

Pursuant to 28 U .S.C. 5636 (b)(1) and Local Magistrate Rule

4 (a), the Parties had fourteen

days after being served with a

copy of the Magistrate Judge's Report to serve and file written

objections, if any, with the Court. Mr. Legore is the only party

to timely file written objections. Ecase No. 12-14439,

94;

Case No . 13-14032, D.E . 98). The Court has not received any

responses to Mr. Legore's objections and the time to do so has

passed . As such , this matter is now ripe for the Court 's review .

Accordingly , the Court ushall make a éq novo determination of

those portions of the report of specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. EThe Court) may accept,

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 3 of 6

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'' 28 U.S.C. 5636 (b)(1)(C). Thus, the Court is required to ugive fresh consideration

to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a

party .'' Jeffrev S. v . State Bd. Of Educw 896 F.2d

(11th

Cir. 1990) Additionally,

EA) party that wishes to preserve its objection must
clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the
specific findings that the party disagrees with . . .
This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges
to spend more time on matters actually contested and
produces a result compatible with the purposes of the
Magistrates Act .

Brown v . U .S., 2013 WL 4482494, (N .D. 2013)(quoting U.S. v .

Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2009)). However,

'Ef)rivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be
considered by the district court .'' Marsden v . Moore , 847 F .2d 1536,

1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Upon review , the Court notes that Mr . Legore does not make any

specific objections regarding the findings of fact or law in the

Magistrate Judge's Report. Mr. Legore simply avers that nEilt is

obvious there was no meetings of the minds total agreement Esic) in

settlement negotiations or at the status conference hearing January

22nd, 2014

and includes unrelated statements regarding the

dismissal of his attorney and his inability

obtain gainful

employment because of these pending actions. Ecase No. 12-14439,

D .E. Case No. 13-14032, D.E .

Legore's objections do

3

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 4 of 6

not include any additional information or citation

legal

authority beyond the aforementioned general and conclusory

statements. Consequently, Mr. Legore's objections will not be
considered by the Court . Marsden , 847 F .2d at 1548 .

Ev en

for arguments sake , the Court were to consider Mr .

Legore 's general statement concerning the settlement conference as

a specific objection, the record belies his argument that there was
no meeting of the minds . Specifically , Judge Goodman noted the

enforceable nature

the oral settlement agreement, carefully

outlined its terms for the record , and considered each party 's

position regarding acceptance. (Case No. 12-14439, D.E. 77 at 9-117

Case No. 13-14032, D.E. 86 at 9-11) With respect to Mr. Legore's

position , an excerpt from the transcript

the settlement

conference reads as follows :

THE COURT :

You are a11 free later on to generate additional paperwork to memorialize the settlement agreement , but what we are going to do here today on the record will in and of itself be an enforceab le settlement agreement .

The settlement agreement will be for b0th cases combined . The defendant will be
paying $150,000 which will include
attorneys' fees and costs . And , in addition , the defendant will be agreeing to a consent decree .

*

THE COURT :

A 1l right . Very well . Now , from the individual plaintiff's perspective . Mr . Legore , is this, in fact, what you have
agreed to?

4

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 5 of 6

MR . LEGORE : Yes, it is .

Id . Thus, the record shows that Mr . Legore unequivocally understood

and agreed to the terms of the settlement agreement . As a result ,

had Mr. Legore specifically objected on this point, his objection
would be overruled . Accordingly , is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Case

No. 12-14439, D.E. 91; Case No. 13-14032, D.E . 95) is AFFIRMED,

ADOPTED , AND RATIFIED in its entirety and is incorporated into this

Order by reference . is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Gary Legore 's Motions to Vacate

Settlement Ecase No. 12-14439, D.E. 78; Case No . 13-14032, D .E. 87) are DENIED on the grounds stated herein and in the Magistrate

Judge 's Report . It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Bay State M illing Company 's

incorporated Motion to Enforce Settlement Ecase No. 13-14032, D.E . 9O; 91) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

Gary Legore is hereby ORDERED to fu lly execute an

IRS Form

and return the same to Bay State

M illing Company 's counsel within ten

days from

the entry of this Order ; Upon receipt of the fully executed Form W-9 from

Gary Legore , Bay State Milling Company shall forward the net settlement proceeds to Gary

5

Case 2:13-cv-14032-DLG Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2014 Page 6 of 6
Legore's address on record forthwith ; and Bay State Milling Company 's request for attorneys '
fees and costs is DENIED . It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Equal Employment Opportunity Comm ission 's incorporated Cross-Motion Requesting Bay State Milling Company to Demonstrate Compliance with the Consent Decree Ecase No. 12-14439, D.E. 86q is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, o''da, this /
of August , 2014 .
DONALD L . GRAHAM UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc : U .S . Magistrate Judge Goodman A 11 Counsel of Record Gary Legore, Pro 54 9495 Rye Creek Road Lonedell, MO 63060
6

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 1 of 9
CLOSED,FJL,MEDIATION,REF_DISCOV,REF_SETTLEMENT
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Pierce) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−14439−DLG

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bay State Milling Company Assigned to: Judge Donald L. Graham Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman (Settlement) Cause: 29:0623 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/10/2012 Date Terminated: 12/27/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Anne McCoy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office Miami Tower 100 S.E. 2nd Street Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1790 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: Kimberly.Cruz@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P. David Lopez United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035−5968 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Elliot Weisberg U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1789 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: robert.weisberg@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 2 of 9

Aarrin Benatra Golson U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office Miami Tower 100 SE 2nd Street Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1783 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: Aarrin.Golson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Consol Plaintiff Gary Legore

represented by Gary Legore 9495 Rye Crrek Road Lonedell, Mo 63060 PRO SE
Cathleen Ann Scott Cathleen A. Scott 250 South Central Boulevard Jupiter Gardens Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33458 561−653−0008 Fax: 653−0020 Email: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Bay State Milling Company

represented by Jennifer A. Schwartz Jackson Lewis P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 305−577−7600 Fax: 305−373−4466 Email: schwartj@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim M. Lucas Liebler Gonzalez &Portuondo 44 West Flagler Street 25th Floor Miami, FL 33130 United Sta 305−379−0400 Fax: 305−379−9626 Email: kml@lgplaw.com TERMINATED: 10/23/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeremiah Richard Jones Jackson Lewis P.C. One Biscayne Tower, 35th Floor

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 3 of 9
2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 3055777600 Fax: 3053734466 Email: jeremiah.jones@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Mead Santoro Jackson Lewis P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131−1802 305−577−7600 Fax: 373−4466 Email: santorot@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/10/2012
12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/11/2012 01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/04/2013
01/08/2013
01/31/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 02/06/2013
02/20/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Bay State Milling Company. Filing fee $ 350.00. USA Filer − No Filing Fee Required, filed by Eeoc. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s))(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2 Judge Assignment to Judge Donald L. Graham and Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr (tpl) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
3 Summons Issued as to Bay State Milling Company. (tpl) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
4 Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorneys James L. Lee and Gwendolyn Y. Reams, mailing date December 11, 2012. (ksa) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
5 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Bay State Milling Company.(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kim M. Lucas on behalf of Bay State Milling Company (Lucas, Kim) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Bay State Milling Company (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
8 ORDER Setting Status Conference: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/6/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 1/4/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
9 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 2 Judge Assignment. US Mail returned for: Attorney P. David Lopez . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (cqs) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
10 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Pending Similar Action (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
11 STATUS REPORT by Bay State Milling Company, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
12 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Bay State Milling Company, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lucas, Kim) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Donald L. Graham: Status Conference held on 2/6/2013. Court Reporter: Carly Horenkamp, 305−523−5138 / Carleen_Horenkamp@flsd.uscourts.gov (cf) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 11/18/2013 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Telephonic Calendar Call set for 11/13/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Amended Pleadings due by 5/24/2013. Discovery due by 8/30/2013. Joinder of Parties due by 5/24/2013. Motions due by 9/9/2013. Pretrial

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 4 of 9

02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/27/2013 02/28/2013 03/08/2013
03/11/2013
03/12/2013 04/02/2013
04/03/2013 04/10/2013 04/10/2013 04/10/2013 04/10/2013

Stipulation due by 10/11/2013. Notice of Court Practice. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
15 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
16 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr for Discovery Proceedings. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
17 Notice of Mediation Hearing before Mediator, Cori Flam Meltzer filed by Cori Flam Meltzer. Mediation Hearing set for 3/8/2013 09:30 AM (Meltzer, Cori) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
18 ORDER Scheduling Mediation before Cathleen Scott. Mediation Hearing set for 3/8/2013 09:30 AM. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/28/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
19 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 8 Order Setting Status Conference. US Mail returned for: ATTORNEY P. DAVID LOPEZ . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
20 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 13 Status Conference. US Mail returned for: ATTORNEY P. DAVID LOPEZ . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
21 FINAL MEDIATION REPORT by Cori Flam Meltzer. Disposition: Case did not settle.(Meltzer, Cori) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 4/19/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit B − EEOC Letter, # 3 Exhibit C − Notice of Deposition, # 4 Exhibit D − March 12 Letter, # 5 Exhibit E − March 20 Letter, # 6 Exhibit F − March 26 e−mail, # 7 Exhibit G − March 27 e−mail, # 8 Exhibit H − March 28 e−mail, # 9 Exhibit I − March 29 e−mail, # 10 Exhibit J − April 1 e−mail)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
23 ORDER DIRECTING EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Responses due by noon on 4/10/2013. Replies due by 4:00 p.m. on 4/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 4/3/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
24 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Gary Legore. (Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
25 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
26 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Extension of Time)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
27 RESPONSE to Motion re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 4/22/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 5 of 9

04/10/2013 04/11/2013 04/11/2013 04/12/2013 05/24/2013
06/04/2013 06/04/2013 06/10/2013
06/14/2013 06/18/2013 09/05/2013 09/09/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013

29 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 4/10/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
28 ORDER granting in part, denying in part 22 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 4/10/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
30 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jeremiah Richard Jones on behalf of Bay State Milling Company (Jones, Jeremiah) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
31 ORDER GRANTED conditionallly re 30 Notice of Attorney Appearance filed by Bay State Milling Company Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/12/2013. (dj) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
32 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Better Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 6/10/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit B − Letter, # 3 Exhibit C − Discovery Responses, # 4 Exhibit D − Privilege Logs, # 5 Exhibit E − Letter, # 6 Exhibit F − Letter, # 7 Exhibit G − Email, # 8 Exhibit H − Letter, # 9 Exhibit I − Email, # 10 Exhibit J − Supplemental Discovery Responses, # 11 Exhibit K − Email, # 12 Exhibit L − Email)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
33 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/21/2013 (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
34 ORDER denying 33 Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff shall file response by current deadline, June 10, 2013. And, Defendant may file reply by noon, 6/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 6/4/2013. (cga) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Better Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email 3/27, # 2 Exhibit B − Email 4/22, # 3 Exhibit C − Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit D − Privelege Log, # 5 Exhibit E − Chair Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F − Email 5/8)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
36 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
37 ORDER denying 32 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 6/18/2013. (cga) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
38 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pre−Trial Motions by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 9/23/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
39 ORDER granting 38 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pre−Trial Motions. Motions due by 9/16/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/6/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 10/3/2013 (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
41 Statement of: Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment by Bay State Milling Company re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
42 NOTICE by Bay State Milling Company re 41 Statement re Filing Excerpts from Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits and Affidavit in Support of Its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts − Legore, # 2 Exhibit B − Excerpts − Hawkes, # 3 Exhibit C − Excerpts − Galluzzo, # 4 Exhibit D − Excerpts − Long, # 5 Exhibit E − Excerpts

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 6 of 9

09/18/2013 09/19/2013 10/01/2013 10/03/2013 10/15/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013
10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013
10/24/2013 10/24/2013 10/24/2013 11/01/2013

− Wunderly, # 6 Exhibit F − Excerpts − Dooley, # 7 Exhibit G − Excerpts − Raiola, # 8 Exhibit H − Affidavit − Raiola)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
43 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Its Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/7/2013 (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time. Responses due by 10/3/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/19/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
45 Plaintiff's MOTION to Stay Due to Government Shutdown by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/18/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
46 ORDER GRANTING 45 EEOCS MOTION FOR A STAY DUE TO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/3/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
47 PAPERLESS Order Cancelling Telephonic Pretrial Conference set 10/16/2013 at 2:00 PM per Order staying action due to government shutdown. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/15/2013. (gfw) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
48 ORDER LIFITING STAY DUE TO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/17/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
49 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER RESETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, CALENDAR CALL AND TRIAL DATE. Pretrial Conference set for 11/13/2013 (telephonic) before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 12/16/2013 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 12/11/2013 (telephonic) 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Pretrial Stipulation due by 11/8/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/17/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
50 NOTICE by Bay State Milling Company re Notice of Withdrawal of Kim M. Lucas, Esq. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
Attorney Kim M. Lucas terminated PER DE 50 . (lbc) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
52 Statement of: Material Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 51 Response in Opposition to Motion (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
53 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 52 Statement e Exhibits in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
54 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 51 Response in Opposition to Motion (Filing Corrected Brief) (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
56 Plaintiff's MOTION Request for Oral Argument by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
57 REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law re Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz,

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 7 of 9

11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/04/2013
11/04/2013 11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/06/2013 11/06/2013 11/12/2013
11/18/2013 11/19/2013 11/22/2013 12/10/2013 12/27/2013 01/06/2014 01/07/2014

Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
58 NOTICE of Striking 57 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Bay State Milling Company by Bay State Milling Company (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
59 RESPONSE/REPLY to 55 Response in Opposition to Motion re Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
60 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, RESETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, CALENDAR CALL AND TRIAL DATE. Pretrial Conference set for 12/11/2013 02:00 PM (telephonically) before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 1/13/2014 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 1/8/2014 02:00 PM (telephonically) before Judge Donald L. Graham. Pretrial Stipulation due by 12/6/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/1/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
61 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas Mead Santoro on behalf of Bay State Milling Company. Attorney Thomas Mead Santoro added to party Bay State Milling Company(pty:dft). (Santoro, Thomas) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
62 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for Settlement. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/5/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
63 ORDER setting Settlement Conference for 11/8/2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/5/2013. (oim) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
64 Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Trial by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 11/25/2013 (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
65 ENDORSED ORDER RESETTING 63 Settlement Conference to 11/12/2013 at 1:30 p.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. All other deadlines and directives in the 63 Court's order remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/6/2013. (oim) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
66 Paperless Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Settlement Conference held on 11/12/2013. Case settled. The case was largely resolved and the parties will in the next 10 days finalize any remaining details concerning the proposed consent decree.(Digital 13:30:46.)(mso) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
67 ORDER regarding improper ex parte submissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/18/2013. (Attachments: #(1) "Mediation" E−Mail, #(2) "Release" E−Mail, #(3) "Downstairs" E−Mail) (cct) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
68 ORDER on additional improper ex parte submissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/19/2013. (Attachments: #(1) "Life" E−Mail, #(2) "Donna m ballman" E−Mail) (cct) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
69 Joint MOTION for Approval of Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
70 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/10/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
71 Administrative Order Closing Case. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/27/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
72 Unopposed MOTION to Continue re Motion for a Status Conference by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 1/24/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
73 ORDER granting 72 Motion for Status Conference. Status Conference is set for 1/22/2014 at 10:00 a.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 8 of 9

01/17/2014
01/22/2014
01/23/2014 01/29/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/06/2014 03/10/2014 03/14/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/24/2014 03/24/2014

Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/7/2014. (oim) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
74 ENDORSED ORDER regarding status conference scheduled for January 22, 2014. In addition to the issues raised in Defendant's unopposed motion, the status conference will also address attorney Arthur Schofield's currently−pending motion to withdraw in Case No. 13−14032. Therefore, the parties (including Mr. Legore) and counsel (including Mr. Schofield, whose withdrawal motion is currently pending) SHALL personally appear at the January 22 status conference. The hearing will also discuss the parties' compliance with the settlement agreement reached at the mediation. Failure to appear may result in the Undersigned ordering the non−compliant party or attorney to show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned. Mr. Legore's current counsel of record shall provide Mr. Legore with a copy of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/17/2014. (cct) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
75 Paperless Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Status Conference re: settlement discussions held on 1/22/2014. Court orders a copy of sealed transcript of the mediation settlement held on 11/12/2013. Order to be issued by the Court. Parties: Kimberly Anne McCoy−Cruz, attorney for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Consol Plaintiff, Gary Legore; Attorneys for Defendant, Jennifer Schwartz and Thomas Santoro.(Digital 09:59:11.) (mso) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
76 ORDER granting 75 ore tenus motion to seal transcript of 66 Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/23/2014. (oim) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
77 TRANSCRIPT of Sealed Settlement Conference Hearing held on 11/12/2013, before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman; Court Reporter: Jerald M. Meyers, pages 1−15 (nc) . Modified by Unsealing Transcript pursuant to 92 Endorsed Order on 7/28/2014 (nc). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
78 MOTION to Vacate Settlement by Gary Legore. Responses due by 3/24/2014 (lbc) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
79 ORDER REFERRING 78 MOTION to Vacate filed by Gary Legore. Motions referred to Jonathan Goodman Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 3/5/2014. (lbc) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
80 ORDER setting briefing schedule as to 78 MOTION to Vacate. Responses due by 3/17/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/6/2014. (hs00) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
81 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION to Vacate and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
82 Order on briefing regarding 81 Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement. Responses due by 3/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/14/2014. (oim) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Vacate (Partially Unopposed) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(McCoy, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
84 ORDER granting 83 the EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 78 Legore's MOTION to Vacate. Response due by 3/24/2014 Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/17/2014. (oim) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
85 RESPONSE/REPLY to 78 MOTION to Vacate Settlement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Final Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B: Email from Jennifer Schwartz − REDACTED)(McCoy, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
86 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Vacate (Partially Unopposed) Response to

Case: 2:12-cv-14439-DLG As of: 01/17/2015 10:43 AM EST 9 of 9

03/24/2014
04/01/2014
07/15/2014 07/21/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 08/06/2014 08/18/2014

BSM's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Cross Motion Requesting the Court to Require BSM to Demonstrate Compliance with the Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 4/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Final Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B: Email from Jennifer Schwartz − REDACTED)(McCoy, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
87 ENDORSED ORDER concerning EEOC's cross motion requesting that the Court require Bay State to demonstrate compliance with the consent decree. Bay State shall respond with a double−spaced memorandum of no more than 5 pages, excluding the certificate of service and signature block, by April 2, 2014. No reply is permitted. In addition, the EEOC shall immediately serve Mr. Legore with a copy of its motion and this endorsed order by mail and email, and Bay State shall also serve Mr. Legore (by the same methods) with a copy of its response memorandum immediately upon uploading it onto the CM/ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 03/24/2014. (JG) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
88 RESPONSE/REPLY to 85 Response/Reply (Other), 86 Response to Motion,, re Defendant's Response in Opposition to the EEOC's Cross Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Determine Defendant's Compliance with the Consent Decree and Its Confidential Settlement Agreement with Legore by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − composite)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
89 ORDER REFERRING Cross Motion 86 to Magistrate Judge Goodman. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 7/15/2014. (lbc) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Plaintiff Attorney Motion to Withdraw &Status Conference Hearing held on 1/22/2014 before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, 1−44 pages, Court Reporter: Jerald M. Meyers, 954−431−4757 / crjm@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/14/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/25/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Designation)(mc) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
91 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 86 Motion for Bay State to Demonstrate Compliance with Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 78 MOTION to Vacate filed by Gary Legore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/25/2014. (oim) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
92 ENDORSED ORDER. The Clerk of the Court is directed to Unseal 77 the transcript of the settlement conference. See 91 Order Unsealing 77 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/25/2014. (oim) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
93 CLERK'S NOTICE of Compliance by Unsealing 77 Transcript pursuant to 92 Endorsed Order (nc) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
94 OBJECTIONS to 91 Report and Recommendations by Gary Legore. (lbc) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
95 ORDER. Denying 78 Motion to Vacate ; Adopting 91 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 8/17/2014. (lbc) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

 
 Bay State Milling Company to Pay $80K to Settle EEOC Hiring Discrimination Case

Page 1 of 2

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Español | Other Languages

Enter search terms...

Search

Home

About EEOC

Contact Us

Employees & Applicants

Employers

Federal Agencies

About EEOC
Overview
The Commission

 Home > About EEOC > Newsroom > Press Releases
PRESS RELEASE 12-11-13

Meetings of the Commission
Open Government
Newsroom
Laws, Regulations, Guidance & MOUs
Budget & Performance
Enforcement & Litigation
Initiatives
Interagency Programs
Publications
Statistics
Outreach & Education
Legislative Affairs
FOIA & Privacy Act
Doing Business with EEOC
Jobs & Internships
EEOC History

Bay State Milling Company to Pay $80K to Settle EEOC Hiring Discrimination Case
Indiantown, Fla., Milling Company Refused to Hire Qualified Applicant Based on His Age, Federal Agency Charged
MIAMI - Bay State Milling Company, a major flour and grain producer, will pay $80,185 and furnish other relief to settle an age discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC's suit charged that Bay State Milling Company discriminated against Gary Legore, a qualified applicant, when the hiring manager for the Indiantown, Fla., miller vacancy rejected him for the position because of his age. The hiring manager informed Legore of the company's desire to hire a younger individual for the job. The company ultimately hired a 22-year-old with less experience than Legore.
Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual's age. Employees and applicants are covered by this statute. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:12-cv-14439DLG) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The consent decree settling the lawsuit, approved by the court on December 10, includes mandatory training for the hiring manager, interviewing officials and the company's human resources department, with an emphasis on age-related discriminatory practices and age sensitivity. The decree also provides for a number of reporting requirements which subject the company to additional monitoring by the EEOC for a period of two years. The monetary award includes back pay and liquidated damages.

Office of Inspector General

 "Relying on prejudicial stereotypes based on an applicant's age is unlawful and emotionally harmful for the victim," said Regional Attorney Robert E. Weisberg of the EEOC's Miami District Office. "This agency is charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights of all citizens, and age discrimination will not be tolerated."

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-11-13b.cfm

1/17/2015

Bay State Milling Company to Pay $80K to Settle EEOC Hiring Discrimination Case

Page 2 of 2

EEOC Miami District Director Malcolm Medley added, "When a company is seeking someone to fill a vacant position, it is important that it looks to an individual's qualifications and ability to do the job and not to his or her age, which should never be a factor in a company's decision to hire."
According to company information, Bay State Milling is one of the largest producers of flour and grain products in the United States, and employs between approximately 200 and 500 people nationwide at approximately nine facilities.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. The Miami District Office's jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | USA.Gov

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-11-13b.cfm

1/17/2015

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 1 of 8
CLOSED,FJL,JG,MEDREQ,REF_DISCOV,REF_SETTLEMENT
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Pierce) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−14032−DLG

Legore v. Bay State Milling Company Assigned to: Judge Donald L. Graham Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman (Settlement) Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/25/2013 Date Terminated: 11/21/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Gary Legore

represented by Gary Legore 9495 Rye Creek Road Lonedell, MO 63060 PRO SE

Arthur Thomas Schofield 330 Clematis Street Suite 207 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561−655−4211 Fax: 655−5447 Email: aschofield@flalabor.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lindsey Brooke Wagner 250 S. Central Blvd Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33401 (561)653−0008 Email: lwagner@csapalaw.com TERMINATED: 06/20/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cathleen Ann Scott Cathleen A. Scott 250 South Central Boulevard Jupiter Gardens Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33458 561−653−0008 Fax: 653−0020 Email: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com TERMINATED: 06/20/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Bay State Milling Company a foreign profit corporation

represented by Jennifer A. Schwartz Jackson Lewis P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 305−577−7600 Fax: 305−373−4466 Email: schwartj@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeremiah Richard Jones

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 2 of 8
Jackson Lewis P.C. One Biscayne Tower, 35th Floor 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 3055777600 Fax: 3053734466 Email: jeremiah.jones@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Mead Santoro Jackson Lewis P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131−1802 305−577−7600 Fax: 373−4466 Email: santorot@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 01/25/2013 02/01/2013 02/04/2013
02/06/2013 02/07/2013 02/15/2013 02/20/2013
02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/25/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Bay State Milling Company. Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C−5408588, filed by Gary Legore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Summon(s))(Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
2 Judge Assignment to Judge Jose E. Martinez and Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr (bb) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
3 Summons Issued as to Bay State Milling Company. (bb) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
4 Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 2/1/2013. (dq) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
5 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline by Gary Legore. Bay State Milling Company served on 1/29/2013, answer due 2/19/2013. (Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
6 Notice of Pendency of Other Action by Gary Legore (Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
7 ORDER OF TRANSFER to Judge Donald L. Graham for all further proceedings, accepted and signed on 2/7/13. Judge Jose E. Martinez no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 2/6/2013. (asl) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
8 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Bay State Milling Company.(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
9 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES: Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 11/18/2013 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 11/13/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Amended Pleadings due by 5/24/2013. Discovery due by 8/30/2013. Joinder of Parties due by 5/24/2013. Motions due by 9/9/2013. Pretrial Stipulation due by 10/11/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (yha) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
10 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (yha) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
11 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. for Discovery Matters Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (yha) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
12 Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Gary Legore. Responses due by 3/14/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 3 of 8

02/27/2013 04/01/2013 04/16/2013 05/01/2013 05/02/2013 05/10/2013 05/13/2013 05/13/2013 05/14/2013 05/29/2013 05/30/2013
06/12/2013 06/14/2013 06/18/2013 06/20/2013 06/21/2013

13 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this action with 12−14439−CIV−Graham/Lynch is granted as to discovery only. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/27/2013. (asl) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
14 SCHEDULING REPORT − Rule 16.1 by Gary Legore (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
15 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Cathleen Scott. by Gary Legore. Responses due by 5/3/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
16 NOTICE by Gary Legore AND CLAIM OF ATTORNEY'S CHARGING LIEN (Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
17 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing re 15 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff set for 5/30/2013 02:30 PM in Fort Pierce Division before Judge Donald L. Graham. (gfw) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
18 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonic at the Hearing Scheduled on May 30, 2013. Attorney: Cathleen Scott by Gary Legore. Responses due by 5/28/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
19 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonic at the Hearing Scheduled on May 30, 2013. Attorney: Cathleen Scott filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (A) EEOC's Response Letter)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
20 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jeremiah Richard Jones on behalf of Bay State Milling Company (Jones, Jeremiah) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
21 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonic Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 5/14/2013. (yha) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
22 PAPERLESS NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing set for Thursday, 5/30/2013 02:00 PM in Fort Pierce Division before Judge Donald L. Graham. *COUNSEL PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE TO YOUR RECORDS*(cf) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
23 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Donald L. Graham: Motion Hearing held on 5/30/2013 re 15 Telephonic communications failed regarding plaintiff, (serveral attempts unable to contact plaintiff, and he was unable to call 1−888 #; The Court reset the hearing, counsel to appear Telephoinically on(Monday, 6/24/2013 09:30 AM in Miami Division before Judge Donald L. Graham re: Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Cathleen Scott. filed by Gary Legore, as to 15 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Cathleen Scott.. Court Reporter: Carly Horenkamp, 305−523−5138 / Carleen_Horenkamp@flsd.uscourts.gov (cf) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
24 Renewed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Cathleen Scott. by Gary Legore. Responses due by 7/1/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
25 ORDER conditionally granting 15 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ; conditionally granting 24 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/14/2013. (yha) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
26 STIPULATION of Substitution of Counsel by Gary Legore (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schofield, Arthur) Modified to convert document to motion on 6/19/2013 (yha). (Entered: 06/18/2013)
27 ORDER granting 26 Unstipulated Motion for Substitution of Counsel. Added attorney Arthur Thomas Schofield for Gary Legore. Attorney Cathleen Ann Scott and Lindsey Brooke Wagner terminated Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/20/2013. (yha) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
28 AMENDED ORDER conditionally GRANTING 26 Stipulated Substitution of Counsel Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 6/20/2013. (yha) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 4 of 8

08/07/2013 08/09/2013 08/13/2013 08/23/2013
08/23/2013
08/23/2013 09/03/2013 09/12/2013 09/19/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013 09/30/2013
09/30/2013 10/02/2013

29 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Gary Legore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Counsel's e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B − Produced e−mails, # 3 Exhibit C − Proposed Amended Complaint)(Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Gary Legore. (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
32 ORDER granting 29 Motion for Leave to File. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re−file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge. Discovery due by 9/30/2013. Re: 29 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 8/23/2013. (yha) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
33 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 11/13/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 12/16/2013 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 12/11/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Discovery due by 9/30/2013. Motions due by 10/7/2013. Pretrial Stipulation due by 11/8/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 8/23/2013. (yha) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
34 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Bay State Milling Company filed in response to Order Granting Motion for Leave, filed by Gary Legore.(Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
35 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
36 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response to Discovery by Gary Legore. Responses due by 9/30/2013 (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
37 ORDER REFERRING 36 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response to Discovery filed by Gary Legore Motions referred to Frank J. Lynch, Jr Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/19/2013. (yha) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 10/18/2013 (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
39 Statement of: Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment by Bay State Milling Company re 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
40 NOTICE by Bay State Milling Company re 39 Statement re Notice of Filing Excerpts from Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits and Affidavits in Support of Its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts − Legore, # 2 Exhibit B − Excerpts − Hawkes, # 3 Exhibit C − Excerpts − Galluzzo, # 4 Exhibit D − Excerpts − Long, # 5 Exhibit E − Excerpts − Wunderly, # 6 Exhibit F − Excerpts − Dooley, # 7 Exhibit G − Excerpts − Raiola, # 8 Exhibit H − Affidavit − Raiola, # 9 Exhibit I − Affidavit − Hawkes)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
41 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response to Discovery filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Third RFP, # 2 Exhibit B − Plaintiff's Third RFP)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
42 Defendant's MOTION for Hearing re 36 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response to Discovery by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 5 of 8

10/02/2013 10/10/2013 10/10/2013 10/15/2013 10/15/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013 10/22/2013
10/22/2013 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/04/2013 11/05/2013

43 ORDER denying without prejudice 42 Motion for hearing on motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 10/2/2013. (cga) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
44 REPLY to Response to Motion re 36 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response to Discovery filed by Gary Legore. (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
45 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Compel. Discovery production due by 10/23/2013. Re: 36 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response to Discovery . Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 10/10/2013. (yha) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
46 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Gary Legore. (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
47 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law. Response due by 10/18/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/15/2013. (jua) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
48 ORDER RE: PARTIES' PROPOSED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER is GRANTED. Court will enter the requested Confidentiality Order separately. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 10/16/2013. (cga) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
49 CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 10/16/2013. (cga) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
50 Renewed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Gary Legore. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
51 ORDER granting 50 Renewed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law. Responses due by 10/22/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/16/2013. (jua) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Gary Legore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E−mail Composite, # 2 Exhibit B − Legore Depo., # 3 Exhibit C − Miller Posting, # 4 Exhibit D − Raiola Depo., # 5 Exhibit E − Rsp. to Req. for Adm., # 6 Exhibit F − Legore Resume, # 7 Exhibit G − Plant Manager, # 8 Exhibit H − Legore Affidavit)(Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
53 Statement of: Disputed Facts by Gary Legore (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
54 REPLY to Response to Motion re 38 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law re Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Order (Diaz v AIG))(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
55 NOTICE of Striking 54 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Bay State Milling Company by Bay State Milling Company (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
56 RESPONSE/REPLY to 52 Response in Opposition to Motion, re Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Order (Diaz v AIG))(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
57 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas Mead Santoro on behalf of Bay State Milling Company. Attorney Thomas Mead Santoro added to party Bay State Milling Company(pty:dft). (Santoro, Thomas) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
58 Joint MOTION for Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge by Gary Legore. Responses due by 11/22/2013 (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 6 of 8

11/05/2013 11/05/2013
11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/06/2013 11/06/2013 11/06/2013
11/12/2013
11/18/2013 11/19/2013 11/20/2013 11/21/2013 11/21/2013 11/25/2013 12/05/2013 12/30/2013 12/31/2013

59 ORDER setting Settlement Conference for 11/8/2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/5/2013. (oim) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
60 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER RESETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, CALENDAR CALL AND TRIAL DATE: Pretrial Conference set for 12/11/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 1/13/2014 in Fort Pierce Division before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 1/8/2014 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Pretrial Stipulation due by 12/6/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/5/2013. (yha) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
61 ORDER granting 58 Motion for Settlement Conference Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/5/2013. (yha) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
62 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for Settlement Conference Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/5/2013. see 61 Order for Image (yha) Modified text on 11/6/2013 (yha). (Entered: 11/06/2013)
63 MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by Gary Legore. Responses due by 11/25/2013 (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
64 Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Trial by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 11/25/2013 (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
65 ENDORSED ORDER granting 63 Motion to Continue. The 59 Settlement Conference is RESET for 11/12/2013 at 1:30 p.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. All other deadlines and directives in the 59 Court's order remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/6/2013. (oim) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
66 Paperless Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Settlement Conference held on 11/12/2013. Case settled. The case was largely resolved and the parties will in the next 10 days finalize any remaining details concerning the proposed consent decree.(Digital 13:30:46.)(mso) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
67 ORDER on improper ex parte submissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/18/2013. (Attachments: #(1) "Mediation" E−Mail, #(2) "Release" E−Mail, #(3) "Downstairs" E−Mail) (cct) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
68 ORDER on additional improper ex parte submissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/19/2013. (Attachments: #(1) "Life" E−Mail, #(2) "Donna m ballman" E−Mail) (cct) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
69 NOTICE of Compliance with Order on Additional Improper Ex Parte Submissions by Gary Legore re 68 Order (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
70 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Gary Legore (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
71 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice. This case is closed. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/21/2013. (asl) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
72 AMENDED ORDER DSMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE re 70 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Gary Legore Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/25/2013. (yha) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
73 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arthur Schofield. by Gary Legore. Responses due by 12/23/2013 (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
74 ORDER REFERRING 73 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arthur Schofield. filed by Gary Legore Motions referred to Jonathan Goodman Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/30/2013. (yha) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
75 ENDORSED ORDER on 73 motion to withdraw. By 1/7/2014, Mr. Schofield shall serve Mr. Legore (by both regular mail and fed ex/overnight/or express mail) with a copy of the motion and a copy of this Endorsed Order. Mr. Schofield shall also

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 7 of 8

12/31/2013 01/02/2014 01/06/2014 01/06/2014 01/07/2014 01/17/2014
01/22/2014
01/22/2014
01/23/2014 01/27/2014 01/27/2014

submit a status report regarding his efforts to serve Mr. Legore. If Mr. Legore opposes the motion to withdraw, then he shall file a response to the motion by 1/17/2014. Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel shall file a joint status report regarding the status of the settlement reached in this case by 1/10/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 12/31/2013. (oim) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
Set Deadlines per 75 Order. Status Report due by 1/10/2014. (asl) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
76 STATUS REPORT on Efforts to Serve Order and Motion by Gary Legore (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Dec. 31 e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B − Jan. 1 e−mail, # 3 Exhibit C − Letter to Legore)(Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
77 Unopposed MOTION to Continue re Defendant's Unopposed Motion for a Status Conference by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 1/24/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
78 STATUS REPORT on Settlement by Gary Legore (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
79 ORDER granting 77 Motion for Status Conference. Status Conference is set for 1/22/2014 at 10:00 a.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/7/2014. (oim) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
80 ENDORSED ORDER regarding status conference scheduled for January 22, 2014. In addition to the issues raised in Defendant's unopposed motion, the status conference will also address attorney Arthur Schofield's currently−pending motion to withdraw in Case No. 13−14032. Therefore, the parties (including Mr. Legore) and counsel (including Mr. Schofield, whose withdrawal motion is currently pending) SHALL personally appear at the January 22 status conference. The hearing will also discuss the parties' compliance with the settlement agreement reached at the mediation. Failure to appear may result in the Undersigned ordering the non−compliant party or attorney to show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned. Mr. Legore's current counsel of record shall provide Mr. Legore with a copy of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/17/2014. (cct) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
81 ENDORSED ORDER granting 73 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Arthur Thomas Schofield terminated. If Plaintiff intends to retain new counsel, then he has 30 days − until February 21, 2014 − to do so. If new counsel is retained, then counsel shall also by February 21 file a notice advising of Plaintiff's position regarding the total amount of the global settlement reached in this case and Case No. 12−14439. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/22/2014. (cct) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
82 Paperless Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Motion Hearing held on 1/22/2014 re: DE # 73 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Arthur Thomas Schofield. Court Grants Motion to Withdraw. Status Conference re: settlement discussions held on 1/22/2014. Plaintiff Gary Legore to retain counsel within 30 days. Court orders sealed transcript of mediation settlement held on 11/12/13. Order to be issued by the Court. Parties: Plaintiff, Gary Legore, Arthur Schofield, attorney for Plaintiff (which has now withdrawn from this matter.) Defendant's corporate representative Sean Costello present, along with Jennifer Schwartz and Thomas Santoro, attorneys for Defendants.(Digital 09:59:11.) (mso) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
83 ORDER granting 82 ore tenus motion to seal transcript of 66 Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/23/2014. (oim) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
Attorney Arthur Thomas Schofield representing Legore, Gary (Plaintiff) Activated. (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
84 NOTICE by Gary Legore of Claim of Attorney's Charging Lien (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 01/27/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-14032 As of: 01/17/2015 01:37 PM EST 8 of 8

01/27/2014 01/29/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/06/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014 03/11/2014
03/14/2014 07/21/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 08/06/2014 08/18/2014

85 NOTICE by Gary Legore Notice of Removal as Counsel for Plaintiff (Schofield, Arthur) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
86 TRANSCRIPT of Sealed Settlement Conference Hearing held on 11/12/2013, before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman; Court Reporter: Jerald M. Meyers, pages 1−15 (nc). Modified by Unsealing Transcript pursuant to 96 Endorsed Order on 7/28/2014 (nc). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
87 MOTION to Vacate Settlement by Gary Legore. Responses due by 3/24/2014 (yha) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
88 ORDER REFERRING 87 MOTION to Vacate Settlement filed by Gary Legore Motions referred to Jonathan Goodman Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 3/5/2014. (yha) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
89 ORDER setting briefing schedule as to 87 MOTION to Vacate. Responses due by 3/17/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/6/2014. (hs00) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
90 RESPONSE in Opposition re 87 MOTION to Vacate and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
91 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by Bay State Milling Company. see 90 for image Responses due by 3/27/2014 (yha) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
92 Clerks Notice to Filer re 90 Response in Opposition to Motion. Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR − Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (yha) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
93 Order Regarding Briefing on Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement, Responses due by 3/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/14/2014. (oim) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
94 TRANSCRIPT of Plaintiff Attorney Motion to Withdraw &Status Conference Hearing held on 1/22/2014 before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, 1−44 pages, Court Reporter: Jerald M. Meyers, 954−431−4757 / crjm@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/14/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/25/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Designation)(mc) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
95 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 87 MOTION to Vacate filed by Gary Legore, and 90 and 91 MOTION to Enforce Settlement filed by Bay State Milling Company. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/25/2014. (oim) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
96 ENDORSED ORDER. The Clerk of the Court is directed to Unseal 86 the transcript of the settlement conference. See 95 Order Unsealing 86 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/25/2014. (oim) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
97 CLERK'S NOTICE of Compliance by Unsealing 86 Transcript pursuant to 96 Endrosed Order (nc) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
98 OBJECTIONS to 95 Report and Recommendations by Gary Legore. (yha) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
99 ORDER denying 87 Motion to Vacate ; granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion for Settlement; adopting Report and Recommendations re 95 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 8/17/2014. (yha) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 1 of 9
CLOSED,FJL,MEDIATION,REF_DISCOV,REF_SETTLEMENT
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Pierce) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−14439−DLG

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bay State Milling Company Assigned to: Judge Donald L. Graham Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman (Settlement) Cause: 29:0623 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/10/2012 Date Terminated: 12/27/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Anne McCoy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office Miami Tower 100 S.E. 2nd Street Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1790 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: Kimberly.Cruz@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P. David Lopez United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division PO Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035−5968 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Elliot Weisberg U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1789 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: robert.weisberg@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 2 of 9

Aarrin Benatra Golson U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office Miami Tower 100 SE 2nd Street Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 305−808−1783 Fax: 305−808−1835 Email: Aarrin.Golson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Consol Plaintiff Gary Legore

represented by Gary Legore 9495 Rye Crrek Road Lonedell, Mo 63060 PRO SE
Cathleen Ann Scott Scott Wagner &Associates, P.A. 250 South Central Boulevard Jupiter Gardens Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33458 561−653−0008 Fax: 653−0020 Email: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Bay State Milling Company

represented by Jennifer A. Schwartz Jackson Lewis P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 305−577−7600 Fax: 305−373−4466 Email: schwartj@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kim M. Lucas Liebler Gonzalez &Portuondo 44 West Flagler Street 25th Floor Miami, FL 33130 United Sta 305−379−0400 Fax: 305−379−9626 Email: kml@lgplaw.com TERMINATED: 10/23/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jeremiah Richard Jones Jackson Lewis P.C. One Biscayne Tower, 35th Floor

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 3 of 9
2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 3055777600 Fax: 3053734466 Email: jeremiah.jones@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Mead Santoro Jackson Lewis P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131−1802 305−577−7600 Fax: 373−4466 Email: santorot@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/10/2012
12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/11/2012 01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/02/2013 01/04/2013
01/08/2013
01/31/2013 01/31/2013 01/31/2013 02/06/2013
02/20/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Bay State Milling Company. Filing fee $ 350.00. USA Filer − No Filing Fee Required, filed by Eeoc. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s))(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2 Judge Assignment to Judge Donald L. Graham and Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr (tpl) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
3 Summons Issued as to Bay State Milling Company. (tpl) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
4 Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorneys James L. Lee and Gwendolyn Y. Reams, mailing date December 11, 2012. (ksa) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
5 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Bay State Milling Company.(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kim M. Lucas on behalf of Bay State Milling Company (Lucas, Kim) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Bay State Milling Company (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
8 ORDER Setting Status Conference: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/6/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 1/4/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
9 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 2 Judge Assignment. US Mail returned for: Attorney P. David Lopez . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (cqs) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
10 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Pending Similar Action (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
11 STATUS REPORT by Bay State Milling Company, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
12 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Bay State Milling Company, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lucas, Kim) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Donald L. Graham: Status Conference held on 2/6/2013. Court Reporter: Carly Horenkamp, 305−523−5138 / Carleen_Horenkamp@flsd.uscourts.gov (cf) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 11/18/2013 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Telephonic Calendar Call set for 11/13/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Amended Pleadings due by 5/24/2013. Discovery due by 8/30/2013. Joinder of Parties due by 5/24/2013. Motions due by 9/9/2013. Pretrial

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 4 of 9

02/20/2013 02/20/2013 02/27/2013 02/28/2013 03/08/2013
03/11/2013
03/12/2013 04/02/2013
04/03/2013 04/10/2013 04/10/2013 04/10/2013 04/10/2013

Stipulation due by 10/11/2013. Notice of Court Practice. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
15 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
16 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr for Discovery Proceedings. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/20/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
17 Notice of Mediation Hearing before Mediator, Cori Flam Meltzer filed by Cori Flam Meltzer. Mediation Hearing set for 3/8/2013 09:30 AM (Meltzer, Cori) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
18 ORDER Scheduling Mediation before Cathleen Scott. Mediation Hearing set for 3/8/2013 09:30 AM. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/28/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
19 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 8 Order Setting Status Conference. US Mail returned for: ATTORNEY P. DAVID LOPEZ . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
20 Clerk's Notice of Undeliverable Mail re 13 Status Conference. US Mail returned for: ATTORNEY P. DAVID LOPEZ . The Court has not located an updated address for this party. After two unsuccessful noticing attempts, notices from the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case until a correct address is provided. (lbc) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
21 FINAL MEDIATION REPORT by Cori Flam Meltzer. Disposition: Case did not settle.(Meltzer, Cori) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 4/19/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit B − EEOC Letter, # 3 Exhibit C − Notice of Deposition, # 4 Exhibit D − March 12 Letter, # 5 Exhibit E − March 20 Letter, # 6 Exhibit F − March 26 e−mail, # 7 Exhibit G − March 27 e−mail, # 8 Exhibit H − March 28 e−mail, # 9 Exhibit I − March 29 e−mail, # 10 Exhibit J − April 1 e−mail)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
23 ORDER DIRECTING EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Responses due by noon on 4/10/2013. Replies due by 4:00 p.m. on 4/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 4/3/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
24 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Gary Legore. (Scott, Cathleen) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
25 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
26 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Extension of Time)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
27 RESPONSE to Motion re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 4/22/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 04/10/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 5 of 9

04/10/2013 04/11/2013 04/11/2013 04/12/2013 05/24/2013
06/04/2013 06/04/2013 06/10/2013
06/14/2013 06/18/2013 09/05/2013 09/09/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013

29 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 4/10/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
28 ORDER granting in part, denying in part 22 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 4/10/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
30 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jeremiah Richard Jones on behalf of Bay State Milling Company (Jones, Jeremiah) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
31 ORDER GRANTED conditionallly re 30 Notice of Attorney Appearance filed by Bay State Milling Company Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 4/12/2013. (dj) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
32 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Better Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 6/10/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit B − Letter, # 3 Exhibit C − Discovery Responses, # 4 Exhibit D − Privilege Logs, # 5 Exhibit E − Letter, # 6 Exhibit F − Letter, # 7 Exhibit G − Email, # 8 Exhibit H − Letter, # 9 Exhibit I − Email, # 10 Exhibit J − Supplemental Discovery Responses, # 11 Exhibit K − Email, # 12 Exhibit L − Email)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
33 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/21/2013 (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
34 ORDER denying 33 Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff shall file response by current deadline, June 10, 2013. And, Defendant may file reply by noon, 6/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 6/4/2013. (cga) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
35 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Better Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email 3/27, # 2 Exhibit B − Email 4/22, # 3 Exhibit C − Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit D − Privelege Log, # 5 Exhibit E − Chair Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F − Email 5/8)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
36 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Gary Legore's Deposition and to Compel the EEOC to Produce Responses to Defendant's Discovery Requests filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
37 ORDER denying 32 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr on 6/18/2013. (cga) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
38 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pre−Trial Motions by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 9/23/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
39 ORDER granting 38 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pre−Trial Motions. Motions due by 9/16/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/6/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 10/3/2013 (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
41 Statement of: Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment by Bay State Milling Company re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
42 NOTICE by Bay State Milling Company re 41 Statement re Filing Excerpts from Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits and Affidavit in Support of Its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpts − Legore, # 2 Exhibit B − Excerpts − Hawkes, # 3 Exhibit C − Excerpts − Galluzzo, # 4 Exhibit D − Excerpts − Long, # 5 Exhibit E − Excerpts

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 6 of 9

09/18/2013 09/19/2013 10/01/2013 10/03/2013 10/15/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013
10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013
10/24/2013 10/24/2013 10/24/2013 11/01/2013

− Wunderly, # 6 Exhibit F − Excerpts − Dooley, # 7 Exhibit G − Excerpts − Raiola, # 8 Exhibit H − Affidavit − Raiola)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
43 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Its Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/7/2013 (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
44 ORDER granting 43 Motion for Extension of Time. Responses due by 10/3/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 9/19/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
45 Plaintiff's MOTION to Stay Due to Government Shutdown by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/18/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
46 ORDER GRANTING 45 EEOCS MOTION FOR A STAY DUE TO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/3/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
47 PAPERLESS Order Cancelling Telephonic Pretrial Conference set 10/16/2013 at 2:00 PM per Order staying action due to government shutdown. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/15/2013. (gfw) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
48 ORDER LIFITING STAY DUE TO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/17/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
49 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER RESETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, CALENDAR CALL AND TRIAL DATE. Pretrial Conference set for 11/13/2013 (telephonic) before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 12/16/2013 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 12/11/2013 (telephonic) 02:00 PM before Judge Donald L. Graham. Pretrial Stipulation due by 11/8/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 10/17/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
50 NOTICE by Bay State Milling Company re Notice of Withdrawal of Kim M. Lucas, Esq. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
Attorney Kim M. Lucas terminated PER DE 50 . (lbc) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
52 Statement of: Material Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 51 Response in Opposition to Motion (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
53 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 52 Statement e Exhibits in Support of Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
54 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 51 Response in Opposition to Motion (Filing Corrected Brief) (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
56 Plaintiff's MOTION Request for Oral Argument by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
57 REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law re Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz,

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 7 of 9

11/01/2013 11/01/2013 11/04/2013
11/04/2013 11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/06/2013 11/06/2013 11/12/2013
11/18/2013 11/19/2013 11/22/2013 12/10/2013 12/27/2013 01/06/2014 01/07/2014

Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
58 NOTICE of Striking 57 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Bay State Milling Company by Bay State Milling Company (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
59 RESPONSE/REPLY to 55 Response in Opposition to Motion re Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment by Bay State Milling Company. (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
60 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, RESETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, CALENDAR CALL AND TRIAL DATE. Pretrial Conference set for 12/11/2013 02:00 PM (telephonically) before Judge Donald L. Graham. Jury Trial set for 1/13/2014 before Judge Donald L. Graham. Calendar Call set for 1/8/2014 02:00 PM (telephonically) before Judge Donald L. Graham. Pretrial Stipulation due by 12/6/2013. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/1/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
61 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas Mead Santoro on behalf of Bay State Milling Company. Attorney Thomas Mead Santoro added to party Bay State Milling Company(pty:dft). (Santoro, Thomas) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
62 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for Settlement. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 11/5/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
63 ORDER setting Settlement Conference for 11/8/2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/5/2013. (oim) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
64 Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases for Trial by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 11/25/2013 (Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
65 ENDORSED ORDER RESETTING 63 Settlement Conference to 11/12/2013 at 1:30 p.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. All other deadlines and directives in the 63 Court's order remain unchanged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/6/2013. (oim) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
66 Paperless Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Settlement Conference held on 11/12/2013. Case settled. The case was largely resolved and the parties will in the next 10 days finalize any remaining details concerning the proposed consent decree.(Digital 13:30:46.)(mso) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
67 ORDER regarding improper ex parte submissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/18/2013. (Attachments: #(1) "Mediation" E−Mail, #(2) "Release" E−Mail, #(3) "Downstairs" E−Mail) (cct) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
68 ORDER on additional improper ex parte submissions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/19/2013. (Attachments: #(1) "Life" E−Mail, #(2) "Donna m ballman" E−Mail) (cct) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
69 Joint MOTION for Approval of Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Golson, Aarrin) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
70 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/10/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
71 Administrative Order Closing Case. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 12/27/2013. (lbc) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
72 Unopposed MOTION to Continue re Motion for a Status Conference by Bay State Milling Company. Responses due by 1/24/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
73 ORDER granting 72 Motion for Status Conference. Status Conference is set for 1/22/2014 at 10:00 a.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 8 of 9

01/17/2014
01/22/2014
01/23/2014 01/29/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/06/2014 03/10/2014 03/14/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/24/2014 03/24/2014

Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/7/2014. (oim) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
74 ENDORSED ORDER regarding status conference scheduled for January 22, 2014. In addition to the issues raised in Defendant's unopposed motion, the status conference will also address attorney Arthur Schofield's currently−pending motion to withdraw in Case No. 13−14032. Therefore, the parties (including Mr. Legore) and counsel (including Mr. Schofield, whose withdrawal motion is currently pending) SHALL personally appear at the January 22 status conference. The hearing will also discuss the parties' compliance with the settlement agreement reached at the mediation. Failure to appear may result in the Undersigned ordering the non−compliant party or attorney to show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned. Mr. Legore's current counsel of record shall provide Mr. Legore with a copy of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/17/2014. (cct) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
75 Paperless Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Status Conference re: settlement discussions held on 1/22/2014. Court orders a copy of sealed transcript of the mediation settlement held on 11/12/2013. Order to be issued by the Court. Parties: Kimberly Anne McCoy−Cruz, attorney for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Consol Plaintiff, Gary Legore; Attorneys for Defendant, Jennifer Schwartz and Thomas Santoro.(Digital 09:59:11.) (mso) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
76 ORDER granting 75 ore tenus motion to seal transcript of 66 Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/23/2014. (oim) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
77 TRANSCRIPT of Sealed Settlement Conference Hearing held on 11/12/2013, before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman; Court Reporter: Jerald M. Meyers, pages 1−15 (nc) . Modified by Unsealing Transcript pursuant to 92 Endorsed Order on 7/28/2014 (nc). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
78 MOTION to Vacate Settlement by Gary Legore. Responses due by 3/24/2014 (lbc) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
79 ORDER REFERRING 78 MOTION to Vacate filed by Gary Legore. Motions referred to Jonathan Goodman Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 3/5/2014. (lbc) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
80 ORDER setting briefing schedule as to 78 MOTION to Vacate. Responses due by 3/17/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/6/2014. (hs00) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
81 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION to Vacate and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
82 Order on briefing regarding 81 Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement. Responses due by 3/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/14/2014. (oim) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Vacate (Partially Unopposed) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion)(McCoy, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
84 ORDER granting 83 the EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response as to 78 Legore's MOTION to Vacate. Response due by 3/24/2014 Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 3/17/2014. (oim) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
85 RESPONSE/REPLY to 78 MOTION to Vacate Settlement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Final Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B: Email from Jennifer Schwartz − REDACTED)(McCoy, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
86 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION to Vacate (Partially Unopposed) Response to

Case: 2:12-cv-14439 As of: 01/18/2016 02:50 PM EST 9 of 9

03/24/2014
04/01/2014
07/15/2014 07/21/2014
07/25/2014 07/25/2014 07/28/2014 08/06/2014 08/18/2014

BSM's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Cross Motion Requesting the Court to Require BSM to Demonstrate Compliance with the Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 4/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Final Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit B: Email from Jennifer Schwartz − REDACTED)(McCoy, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
87 ENDORSED ORDER concerning EEOC's cross motion requesting that the Court require Bay State to demonstrate compliance with the consent decree. Bay State shall respond with a double−spaced memorandum of no more than 5 pages, excluding the certificate of service and signature block, by April 2, 2014. No reply is permitted. In addition, the EEOC shall immediately serve Mr. Legore with a copy of its motion and this endorsed order by mail and email, and Bay State shall also serve Mr. Legore (by the same methods) with a copy of its response memorandum immediately upon uploading it onto the CM/ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 03/24/2014. (JG) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
88 RESPONSE/REPLY to 85 Response/Reply (Other), 86 Response to Motion,, re Defendant's Response in Opposition to the EEOC's Cross Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Determine Defendant's Compliance with the Consent Decree and Its Confidential Settlement Agreement with Legore by Bay State Milling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − composite)(Schwartz, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
89 ORDER REFERRING Cross Motion 86 to Magistrate Judge Goodman. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 7/15/2014. (lbc) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Plaintiff Attorney Motion to Withdraw &Status Conference Hearing held on 1/22/2014 before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman, 1−44 pages, Court Reporter: Jerald M. Meyers, 954−431−4757 / crjm@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/14/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/25/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/23/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Designation)(mc) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
91 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 86 Motion for Bay State to Demonstrate Compliance with Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 78 MOTION to Vacate filed by Gary Legore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/25/2014. (oim) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
92 ENDORSED ORDER. The Clerk of the Court is directed to Unseal 77 the transcript of the settlement conference. See 91 Order Unsealing 77 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/25/2014. (oim) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
93 CLERK'S NOTICE of Compliance by Unsealing 77 Transcript pursuant to 92 Endorsed Order (nc) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
94 OBJECTIONS to 91 Report and Recommendations by Gary Legore. (lbc) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
95 ORDER. Denying 78 Motion to Vacate ; Adopting 91 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 8/17/2014. (lbc) (Entered: 08/18/2014)