f U.§. yT\\L~E~O OnU~RL1A.
MIDII\ ,. _.~ ..'" U. iik," ,

.*_ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT&Q,ij,~'J:. 3 Pi~ 2: 5 \
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOOtSIANA' -

S\GN\CHAR~

R CLERK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

*

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

*

* *

CIVIL ACTION NO. ~~- 3G5-C-fr_

v.

* *

COMPLAINT

SPECIALIZED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE, **

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

*

Defendant.

*

*

******************************************

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Mary Smith who was adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant failed to hire Mary Smith into an available welder position because of her sex. Mary Smith was denied an opportunity for employment because of her sex. As a result of the sex discrimination, Mary Smith was not interviewed or hired for available welder positions and thereby denied equal employment opportunities.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 (f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII") 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). and 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Section 1981A.

I """" " I 3:99-cv-00365 1 - 1

DATE: 05/03/99

OEPUTY CLERK: BW

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(5)(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, ("Employer"), a Louisiana Corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Louisiana, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mary Smith filed a charge with the Commission, alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfllied. 7. Since at least February 28, 1994, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at, in violation of Section 703(a)(I) and (2) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e(2)(a)(1) and (2). Said unlawful practices consist of Defendant
2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~----
denying Mary Smith a job as a welder because of her sex. Said unlawful employment practices were committed against Mary Smith as a result of Defendant's policy against hiring women as welders. The unlawful practices consisted of Defendant's failure and refusal to interview and hire Mary Smith for available welder positions while Defendant continued to seek and accept applications from male welders to fill the available positions.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven above has been to deprive Mary Smith of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected her status as an employee, because of her sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were and are intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs seven were and are being done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mary Smith.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in discrimination in hiring against women and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, especially for those women trained and experienced in traditionally male-dominated positions and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
3

C. Order Defendant to make whole Mary Smith, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affIrmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including front-pay.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Mary Smith, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs seven above, including expenses for insurance, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Mary Smith by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs seven above, including emotional pain and suffering, in amounts to determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Mary Smith punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award 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. C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel No Bar Roll Number Assigned
4

Supervisory Tnal ~ orney La. Bar Roll No. 2355

PLEASE SERVE:
David E. Phillip Agent for Service of Process for Specialized Industrial Maintenance 39386 Babin Road Gonzales, La., 70737

Trial Attorney La. Bar Roll Number 16784
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Avenue, Suite 600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Telephone: (504) 589-6950
(504) 589-2011 Facsimile: (504) 589-2805

5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

FILED U.S. 0181 COURT MIDDLE OIST. OF LA. 00 FEG 25 AM 10: 38

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

VERSUS

SPECIALIZED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE

NO. 99-365-C-M2

RULING AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on three motions: (1) The defendant's Motion to

Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Deposition and Requests for Production of Documents

(R. Doc. 13), (2) a related Motion for Expedited Consideration (R. Doc. 15) and (3)

plaintiff's Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 9). The motions to quash and for protective order are

opposed. 1

The case involves a claim by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC claims that defendant

Specialized Industrial Maintenance violated the civil rights of Mary Smith by denying her

a job as a welder because of her sex.

(1) Defendant's motion to quash.

The defendant seeks protection from several document requests the EEOC has

made in both requests for production of documents and subpoenas duces tecum. The

Court will address each area of inquiry specifically:

1 On February 7, 2000, the EEOC filed a motion for leave to file a reply memorandum within 10 days

DKT. &>fr:!f.fJcL~E~A~e order granting leave was issued. On February 10, 2000, the Court granted the motion. (R.

l)oc. 2~.r"1\'§ of this date, no such memorandum has been filed. Thus, the matter is considered submitted

NOTICEMA!Ir~DTO' ~ J..av DATE fOF,decision.

({

5' DATE.£~~~ O j cSt~J

3:99-cv-00365 31 - 1

DATE: 02/25/00

DEPUTY CLERK: BW.

Request 1 seeks "all personnel files, documents, including applications of Mary Smith, Gary Clouatre, Eric Worthy, Eric James, Jeff Baldwin, Jebbie Baldwin, Mike Person and all women welders hired in 1994-1995." The defendant represents that it already has produced the application of Ms. Smith. As to the other documents, the defendant contends that these records, which involve current or former employees of the company, have no relevance to the EEOC's action. The EEOC's opposition memorandum does not specify what role the other individuals may have had in connection with the failure to hire Smith. Moreover, the EEOC provides no explanation as to what might be contained in these files that would be relevant to the issue of whether the defendant discriminated against Smith because of her sex. Absent such an explanation, such a wide-ranging discovery request (e.g. "all personnel files") is overly broad. The motion is granted as to this request.
Requests 2 and 3 seek "any and all" documents relating to the defendant's business relationship with its contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors. The EEOC apparently seeks this information because it contends that a subcontractor who worked for the defendant offered Smith a job and was told that the defendant did not hire women. This alone, however, does not give the EEOC the right to inspect every piece of paper relating to the defendant's business relationship with its contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors. Again, the EEOC has cast its net too wide. The motion is granted as to this request.
Request 6 seeks "any and all documents" including "applications and personnel files relative to all women welders hired in welding positions, particularly refractory welding positions from February 1994 to present." The defendant argues that this request is irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome. The Court disagrees. On its face, this

request does not suggest that it involves an inordinate number of documents, nor does it indicate that these documents are difficult to locate. Moreover, the issue of how many women welders, if any, the defendant has hired since 1994 is directly relevant to the EEOC's claim that the defendant has a policy of not hiring women.
From the defendant's opposition to other requests, however, there does appear to be a problem with providing this information. The defendant represents that it does not hire "welders." Instead, the defendant says that it hires employees who perform various functions, one of which is welding. Ifthat is the case, the defendant should simply explain this in its response. Then, if the EEOC wishes to make a different inquiry, it can do so. The motion is denied as to this request.
Request 8 seeks "any and all documents indicating the whereabouts of Jeff Baldwin, personnel director ... in 1994" along with other information about his responsibilities and duties both generally and specifically on the topic of hiring welders. The defendant suggests that the EEOC can ask Baldwin these things, since he is subpoenaed to testify at a deposition. The defendant argues that it also is impossible to produce documents indicating Baldwin's "whereabouts" in 1994 and 1995.
This part of the motion is granted in part and denied in part. The defendant must produce all documents it has that relate to Baldwin's responsibilities as personnel director and his role in hiring welders (subject to the previously referenced problem with the job title of "welder"). However, the request for documents that show Baldwin's "whereabouts" is hopelessly vague. A person can be in thousands of places in a two-year period. Without some context or specificity, the Court agrees that it is impossible for the defendant to respond properly to this request.
3

Request 10 seeks "any and all documents reflecting projects in 1994-1995 which required [the defendant] to hire welders, particularly refractory welders." The defendant argues that it is not feasible to locate each document that might relate to every project during a two-year period that might have required the hiring of a welder (again, referencing the inaccuracy of the job title "welder" in the nature of the defendant's business). Somewhere in this overly broad request is a relevant discovery issue. However, as the EEOC has phrased it, the defendant would be required to produce every document that related to every job it performed during a two-year period, where that job might conceivably have involved welding. This request plainly overreaches. The motion will be granted as to this request.
Requests 11 and 12 ask for "all payroll records of all persons hired as welders and refractory welders from January 1994-December 1995" and all documents describing how the defendant's payroll records are maintained, including identification of the person responsible for preparing the defendant's payroll in 1994-1995 and the person who maintains those records. These requests are overbroad. If the plaintiff seeks to determine the number of women versus the number of men hired for particular positions, it should specifically ask for that information. From the nature of this case, the plaintiff has shown no need for payroll records and specific information as to how those records are prepared and kept. The motion will be granted as to this request. (2) EEOC's motion to compel.
This motion relates to a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents the EEOC served on the defendant in September 1999. Again, the Court will address these issues separately.
4

Interrogatory 7 asks the defendant to state the reason why Smith was not interviewed for any welder positions from 1994 to the present. The defendant objected to this interrogatory, claiming that it improperly assumes a conscious decision was made not to interview Smith. In its opposition memorandum, the defendant explains that because of the circumstances surrounding the hiring of refractory mechanics "who mayor may not perform welds," a formal interview process is not used. If this is so, the defendant need only have said this in its answer to the interrogatory. Thus, a proper answer might have read something like, "The defendant hires refractory mechanics whose jobs include welding, not just 'welders.' Because ofthe nature of this work, the defendant does not use a formal interview process to fill these positions. This is the reason Smith did not receive a formal interview." As written, the defendant's answer is insufficient. The motion is granted as to this request.
Interrogatory 11 asks the defendant to identify all individuals hired as "refractory welders" in 1994, and it seeks their date of hire, assignment, sex and rate of pay. The defendant objected to this request as being overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The defendant further explains, again, that it does not hire "welders" and thus does not hire "refractory welders." Again, ifthis is so, the defendant should have said so in its answer. The motion is granted as to this request.
Request 2 seeks "any and all documents related to the business relationship between Defendant and its contractor and subcontractors 1994-1995." For the same reasons explained in the Court's ruling on the defendant's motion, this request is overly broad given the nature of this litigation. The motion is denied as to this request.
5

Request 5 asks for "any and all documents, including, applications and personnel files relative to all welders hired in 1994-1997, specifying those hired in refractory welding." The defendant argues this request is unduly burdensome for this reason: Because it hires refractory workers who mayor may not weld - not "welders" - it is impossible to determine what employees would have performed welding tasks during this period. Once again, an explanation of this problem in its response would have been preferable to the use of boilerplate objections. However, the Court will deny the motion as to this request, without prejudice to the EEOC's right to submit a revised document request in accordance with the defendant's hiring of "refractory workers" instead of "welders."
Request 6 seeks "any and all documents, including, applications and personnel files relative to all women welders hired in refractory welding from February 1994 to present." The problem with this request is the same as the problem with Request 5. Thus, the Court's ruling is the same. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion as to this request, without prejudice to the EEOC's right to submit a revised document request in accordance with the defendant's hiring of "refractory workers" instead of "welders."
Request 7 asks for "any and all documents indicating the whereabouts of Jeff Baldwin, personnel director ... in 1994." For the reasons identified in the Court's ruling on the defendant's motion, the EEOC's motion will be denied as to this request.
Request 9 seeks documents "reflecting projects in 1994-1995 which required [the defendant] to hire welders, particularly refractory welders. " Forthe same reasons identified in the Court's rulings on Request 5 and 6, the motion is denied as to this request without prejudice to the EEOC's right to submit a revised document request in accordance with the defendant's hiring of "refractory workers" instead of "welders."
6

Request 10 asks for "any and all documents, including the personnel files relative to Jeff Moore, Eric James and Gary Clouatre." For the reasons identified in the Court's ruling on the defendant's motion, the EEOC's motion will be denied as to this request.
In addition, the EEOC's request for reasonable expenses incurred, including attorney's fees, is denied, as the Court finds that the opposing party's objection was at least partially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A).
Accordingly, (1) The defendant's Motion for Expedited Consideration (R. Doc. 15) is GRANTED. (2) The defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Deposition and Requests for Production of Documents (R. Doc. 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in accordance with the analysis outlined above. (3) The plaintiffs Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 9) is GRANTED IN PART AND ENlED IN PART in accordance with the analysis outlined above. IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall provide to the plaintiff responsive answers and documents to the relevant requests within 10 days of the date this order is signed. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 24th day of February, 2000.
~ ~GE~ CHRISTINE NOLAND
7

 
 !RECEIVED 1
APR 1 2 2000

FILED

U.S. D!31 COURT

'lID[" A 1~\'

I J~, ~C~,' !' \,:'"'. ' ;. ('-')r:-"- '- •

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
PLAINTIFF
V.
SPECIALIZED INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE,
DEFENDANT

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-0365

)

)

)

)

SECTION !lC "M2

)

)

JUDGE TYSON

)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAND

)

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the

Commission") has instituted the captioned civil action in this the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, charging Specialized Industrial Maintenance

("SIM" or "Defendant"), with violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (hereafter referred to as "Title

VII") to obtain injunctive relief, damages and other appropriate relief on behalf of Mary

Smith as a result of alleged gender discrimination; and

'Ret OKT. & ENTERED
o..e DNOATTIECE4:1,~tAlI"L:ErDoTO: lOG
r DATE ',' BvNffiL (Q,Du,rU

I III II I II I

3: 99-cv-00365 36 - 1

DATE: 04/14/00

DEPUTY CLERK: NL

WHEREAS, Defendant has not admitted and does not admit that it has engaged in any unlawful employment practices; and
WHEREAS, this Court hasjurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis action and over the parties to this action; and
WHEREAS, Defendant, the Commission, and the parties have agreed to settle this matter for the relief specified in this Consent Decree (sometimes referred to hereinafter as "this Decree"); and
WHEREAS, the parties to this lawsuit now wish to resolve all claims and controversies encompassed by this lawsuit without the burden, expense or delay of further litigation;
Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. The negotiation, execution and entry ofthis Consent Decree will resolve any and all claims ofTitle VII violations brought by the Commission against Defendant alleged in the instant civil action. 2. The purposes of Title VII will be furthered by the entry of this Decree, the terms of which constitute a fair and equitable settlement. 3. Neither the negotiation, nor the execution, nor the entry ofthis Consent Decree shall constitute an acknowledgment or admission ofany kind by Defendant that its officers, agents or employees have violated or have not been in compliance with Title VII or any other applicable law, regulation or order.
2

4. This Consent Decree relates to any and all claims, demands, or causes ofaction arising out of alleged violations of Title VII, and all claims, demands, or causes of action arising out ofand/or related to the facts which gave rise to the alleged violations ofTitle VII which were complained of in Charge of Discrimination Number 270-94-1189 and which formed the basis of Civil Action Number 99-0365 filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. EEOC reserves all rights to proceed with respect to matters like and related to these matters but not covered in this Consent Decree and to secure relief on behalf of aggrieved persons not covered by the terms of this Consent Decree.
5. Within ten (10) days ofthe receipt ofthe release discussed below, Defendant shall tender to Ms. Smith the sum of $6,750.00 (six thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars) as consideration for this decree. It is hereby understood that this consideration is in no way intended to constitute back pay to Mary Smith. Defendant will condition this tender to Ms. Smith on her executing a settlement agreement releasing her claims arising from the events and/or omissions that are the subject of this lawsuit.
6. Defendant, its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns shall comply with Title VII in its hiring practices. Specifically, SIM agrees that it will not reject any person for employment because that person's gender.
7. Defendant shall not retaliate against any person for having participated in any way in the Commission's investigation of this matter.
3

8. Defendant agrees to provide the Commission with four written reports, at six month intervals beginning six months after the execution of this Decree, setting forth all rejected female applicants for employment in construction trade jobs, setting forth an explanation for the rejection, and attaching all documentation pertaining to each rejection.
9. Defendant agrees that all its supervisory and managerial employees shall, within one year from the date ofthe execution ofthis Decree, undergo training regarding the laws enforced by the EEOC.
10. In the event that Defendant fails to perform its obligations herein, Plaintiff EEOC is empowered to enforce this Consent Decree through the applicable judicial enforcement procedures and to seek sanctions which may be due as a result of the need to enforce this Decree.
11. Should any provision ofthis Decree be declared or be determined by any Court to be illegal or invalid, the validity of the remaining parts, terms or provisions shall not be affected thereby and said illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Decree.
12. This Decree sets forth the entire agreement between the Commission and Defendant as to the captioned lawsuit, and fully supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings between the Commission and Defendant pertaining to the subject matter herein.
·4

-- -.

.....

13. All parties to this action will bear their own attorney's fees and costs incurred

in connection with the litigation of this case.

14. This Decree shall remain in effect for a period of two years from the date of

its execution.

15. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for purposes of enforcing this

Decree, as appropriate.
}t!:~ THUS DONE AND SIGNED, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this

day of ~.....:£

' 2000.

5

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114411115556802-L_3...

U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:99-cv-00365-RET

CLOSED, FRC

Equal Employment Opp v. Specialized Indust Assigned to: Chief Judge Ralph E. Tyson Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 05/03/1999 Date Terminated: 04/14/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Jeffrey T. Agular U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 701 Loyola Avenue Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70113 504-589-6817 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Specialized Industrial Maintenance

represented by Murphy James Foster, III Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson- B.R. P.O. Box 3197 One American Place, 23rd Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3197 225-387-4000 Fax: 225-387-5397 Email: mjf@bswllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Todd Caruso Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson- B.R. P.O. Box 3197 One American Place, 23rd Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3197 225-387-4000 Fax: 225-387-5397 Email: atc@bswllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 5

6/1/2007 9:03 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114411115556802-L_3...

Date Filed 05/03/1999 05/05/1999
07/02/1999 08/12/1999 08/23/1999 08/26/1999 08/26/1999
09/10/1999 09/10/1999 09/14/1999
12/27/1999 12/27/1999
01/04/2000
01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/06/2000
01/06/2000

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (bw) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
2 ORDER, set Scheduling Conference for 9:15 8/26/99 before CN , set Status Report deadline to 8/21/99 ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bw) (Entered: 05/06/1999)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by Specialized Indust (Attorney Murphy James Foster III, Anthony Todd Caruso), (bnw) (Entered: 07/02/1999)
4 NOTICE by Specialized Indust to take deposition of Mary Smith (bnw) (Entered: 08/13/1999)
5 STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opp (elp) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
Scheduling conference held (kdc) (Entered: 08/26/1999)
6 ORDER...08/26/99--Sched conf held... set Discovery deadline to 1/21/00 , set Dispositive Motion Filing deadline to 2/29/00 , set Telephone Conference for 9:00 2/7/00--Plft's counsel will initiate the call ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (kdc) (Entered: 08/26/1999)
7 MOTION by Specialized Indust to Designate Trial Atty (elp) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland : [7-1] motion to Designate Trial Atty (elp) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
8 ORDER granting [7-1] motion to Designate Trial Atty by Specialized Indust ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 09/14/1999)
9 MOTION by Equal Employment Opp to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) (kdc) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
10 MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opp in support of [9-1] motion to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) by Equal Employment Opp (kdc) (Entered: 12/29/1999)
11 RETURN on Service of Deposition Subpoena as to Specialized Industrial Maintenance, through its attorney of record, served on 1/4/00 (bnw) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
12 RETURN on Service of Deposition Subpoena as to Jeff Baldwin, in care of A. Todd Caruso, Attorney of Record, served on 1/4/00 (bnw) (Entered: 01/05/2000)
13 MOTION by Specialized Indust to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents (elp) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
14 MEMORANDUM by Specialized Indust in support of [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust (elp) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
15 MOTION by Specialized Indust for Expedited Hearing on [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by

2 of 5

6/1/2007 9:03 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114411115556802-L_3...

01/06/2000
01/07/2000
01/07/2000 01/11/2000
01/14/2000 01/14/2000 01/18/2000
01/21/2000 01/24/2000 01/26/2000 01/26/2000 01/27/2000 02/01/2000

Specialized Indust (elp) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
16 MEMORANDUM by Specialized Indust in support of [15-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust by Specialized Indust (elp) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
17 ORDER [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland, [15-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust by Specialized Indust referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland ( signed by Judge Ralph E. Tyson ), issued notices. (kdc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
Status Conference held (bnw) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
18 ORDER...Status conf held 1/7/00...pending motion to compel was discussed... reset Discovery deadline to 3/31/00 , reset Motion Filing deadline to 4/28/00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
19 MOTION by Specialized Indust to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Compel (elp) (Entered: 01/18/2000)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland : [19-1] motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Compel (elp) (Entered: 01/18/2000)
20 ORDER granting [19-1] motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Compel by Specialized Indust, Response to Motion reset to 2/1/00 for [9-1] motion to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 01/18/2000)
21 RETURN on Unexecuted Subpoena as to Jeff Baldwin...unable to serve (elp) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
22 MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opp in opposition to [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust (bnw) (Entered: 01/25/2000)
23 MOTION by Specialized Indust for Leave to File Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoenas... ..Not Submitted (elp) Modified on 01/26/2000 (Entered: 01/26/2000)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland : [23-1] motion for Leave to File Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoenas... (elp) (Entered: 01/26/2000)
24 ORDER granting [23-1] motion for Leave to File Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoenas... by Specialized Indust ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 01/27/2000)
25 MEMORANDUM by Specialized Indust in opposition to [9-1] motion to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) by Equal Employment Opp (bnw) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

3 of 5

6/1/2007 9:03 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114411115556802-L_3...

02/03/2000 02/07/2000 02/07/2000 02/08/2000 02/10/2000 02/22/2000 02/25/2000
02/25/2000 03/22/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000
04/12/2000 04/14/2000 04/14/2000

26 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing set for 9:00 3/3/00 for [9-1] motion to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) (elp) (Entered: 02/03/2000)
27 MOTION by Equal Employment Opp for Leave to File Reply Memorandum (bnw) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland : [27-1] motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum (bnw) (Entered: 02/08/2000)
28 REPLY by Specialized Indust to response to [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust (bnw) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
29 ORDER granting [27-1] motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Equal Employment Opp ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
30 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opp to take deposition of Jeff Baldwin (bnw) (Entered: 02/23/2000)
31 ORDER granting [15-1] motion for Expedited Hearing on [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust; granting in part, denying in part in accordance with the anaylsis outlined... [13-1] motion to Quash Subpoenas and Notices of Depositions and Requests for Documents by Specialized Indust; granting in part, denying in part in accordance with the analysis outlined...[9-1] motion to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) by Equal Employment Opp ...ORDERED that the dft shall provide to the pla responsive answers and documents to the relevant requests within 10 days of the date of this order... set Response to discovery deadline for 3/10/00 for Specialized Indust ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 02/25/2000)
32 REPLY by Equal Employment Opp to response to [9-1] motion to Compel and for sanctions under FRCP 37 (a)(2)(B) by Equal Employment Opp (elp) (Entered: 02/29/2000)
33 MOTION by Equal Employment Opp to Extend Discovery Deadlines (bnw) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
Motion(s) referred to Mag. Judge Christine Noland : [33-1] motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (bnw) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
34 ORDER granting [33-1] motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines by Equal Employment Opp, reset Discovery deadline to 5/31/00 , reset Motion Filing deadline to 6/28/00 ( signed by Mag. Judge Christine Noland ), issued notices. (bnw) (Entered: 03/23/2000)
35 JOINT MOTION by Equal Employment Opp, Specialized Indust to Approve and Enter Consent Decree (elp) (Entered: 04/13/2000)
36 ORDER granting [35-1] joint motion to Approve and Enter Consent Decree by Specialized Indust, Equal Employment Opp ... Consent Decree entered ... ( signed by Judge Ralph E. Tyson ), issued notices. (nlt) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
Case closed (nlt) (Entered: 05/01/2000)

4 of 5

6/1/2007 9:03 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report

https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114411115556802-L_3...

05/07/2002

**Set FRC Flag ..Record located at Federal Records Center in Fort Worth, TX (jdl) (Entered: 11/14/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/01/2007 09:03:09

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 3:99-cv-00365-RET 0.24

5 of 5

6/1/2007 9:03 AM