-,

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 1 of 20

a IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU T
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSIS I PI APR 2 2011

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, VS.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC Defendant.

) )

CIVIL ACTION

NO.

. J • rI

e.ll

/ 7 q L~/ t t l W

)

) COMPLAINT

)

and

)

) JURY TRIAL REQUEST

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991

("Title VII"), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national

origin, race, and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Sabulal Vijayan

("Vijayan"), Joseph Jacob Kadakkarappally ("Kadakkarappally"), and a class of

over 500 similarly situated Indian nationals (collectively referred to herein as "the

Indian Employees") brought to the United States by Defendant Signal

International, LLC ("Signal") from the country of India to work as employees at

Signal facilities in Mississippi and Texas.

Signal's unlawful practices adversely affected the Indian Employees as a

class. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("Commission"), alleges Signal violated Title VII by subjecting Vijayan,

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 2 of 20
Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees to: (1) a hostile work environment based on national origin (Indian), and/or race (Asian); and (2) disparate, segregated, and discriminatory treatment, concerning the terms and conditions of their employment. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges Signal retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, because they opposed Defendant's unlawful conduct. Finally, the Commission contends that Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against the Indian Employees because of their race and/or national origin, intending to deny to said employees the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by Title VII.
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 706(£)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(£)(1) and (£)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. This Court has proper venue. Most of the employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 3 of 20
"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 §§ 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), and 707, of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and § 2000e-6.
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal, a Delaware corporation, has been doing business in the City of Pascagoula, State of Mississippi, and Orange, Texas. Signal is engaged in the business of building and repairing off-shore oil ngs.
5. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Signal has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SUIT 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this action, Vijayan and Kadakkarappally filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Signal. 7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled, to-wit:
a) Vijayan and Kadakkarappally filed timely charges of discrimination with the Commission;
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 4 of 20
b) The Commission issued Determinations regarding the allegations made by Vijayan and Kadakkarappally in which the Commission concluded, inter alia, that:
1) Defendant discriminated against Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and the Indian Employees as a class in the terms and conditions of their employment because of their race and/or national origin, in violation of Title VII; 2) Defendant subjected Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and the Indian Employees as a class to a hostile work environment because of their race and/or national origin, in violation of Title VII; and 3) Defendant retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because they opposed conduct which they believed in good faith to be unlawful under Title VII; c) The Commission made a good faith effort to resolve these findings through conciliation, conference, and persuasion. Those efforts proved unsuccessful.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. Defendant, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, was unable to obtain a sufficient number of qualified and reliable pipe fitters and welders to meet
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 5 of 20
the demands of its work load. 9. Defendant, to meet this need, arranged to bring into the United States
over 500 Indian men through the federal government's H-2B guestworker program. These Indian Employees were hired by Defendant to provide labor and services at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas, locations.
10. The first workers arrived in the end of October, 2006. Additional workers came over in waves of 30 to 50 workers until on or about March, 2007.
11. Defendant brought over more than 500 Indian employees, sending some of these workers to its facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and others to its facility in Orange, Texas.
12. At each location the Indian Employees were required to live in modular trailers called "man camps." The "man camps" were built for the exclusive use of the Indian Employees. No other Signal employees were required to live in the "man camps."
13. Before the Indian Employees were permitted to begin work, Defendant required them to sign employment and housing agreements. These agreements were written in English, and Defendant did not give the Indian workers adequate time to read or understand these documents.
14. One of these agreements allowed Defendant to deduct $35 a day (or
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 6 of 20
$1050 per month) from each Indian worker's earnings to reimburse Defendant for the cost of providing food, accommodations, and transportation for each such Indian Employee. Under this agreement Defendant could continue to deduct this amount from the worker's salary even if the Indian Employee elected not to eat the meals provided by Defendant and not to live in the accommodations provided by Defendant.
15. The "man camps" were located on Signal property in isolated, industrial areas miles removed from shopping areas, places of worship, and residential communities. The camps were enclosed by fences and accessible only through a single guarded entrance.
16. Signal assigned numbers to each Indian Employee and used these numbers as a form of identification and reference rather than using the employee's name.
17. Signal camp personnel and supervisors used offensive language in speaking with and/or referring to the Indian Employees and insulted the Indian Employees on the basis of their race and/or national origin.
18. Signal guards monitored the comings and gomgs of the Indian Employees by requiring them to show their employee identification badges. Signal guards also searched the packages and bags of Indian Employees when they entered the camps.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 7 of 20
19. Except on rare occasions, the Indian Employees were not permitted to receive visitors in the "man camps."
20. The "man camps" were composed of a series of one room trailers connected by elevated walkways. Most of the trailers were for sleeping and were referred to as "bunkhouses." Up to twenty-four men were housed in each bunkhouse, sleeping in two-tiered bunk beds. The bunk beds were so tightly packed in the bunkhouses that it was difficult for the workers to move about in the narrow passageways between bunks.
21. The bunkhouses had insufficient toileting and bathing facilities for the twenty-four men. The Indian Employees were forced to rise early to take their place in line for the few toilets and showers in each trailer.
22. Privacy was non-existent for the Indian Employees. The Indian Employees experienced extreme difficulty sleeping due to the constant noise resulting from the close quarters and the comings and goings of workers who worked on different shifts.
22. Signal personnel conducted surpnse searches of the bunkhouses, including searching of worker's personal belongings.
23. The Indian Employees took their meals in mess halls which were part of the "man camps." The mess halls were only open during limited hours, set by Signal. The food provided by Signal was of poor quality and was frequently bad,
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 8 of 20
stale or molded. 24. As a result of unsanitary conditions, sickness was rampant in the
camps, and the Indian Employees sometimes required hospitalization. 25. The "man camps" had rules, enforced by Signal guards. The penalty
for breaking rules was $250 for the first violation and $500 for a second violation. 26. When the Indian Employees complained and asked to live outside the
labor camps, Defendant Signal told the workers that even if they lived outside the camps, Signal would continue to deduct the $35/day charge from the Indian Employee's weekly wage. As a result, the Indian Employees reasonably felt that they had no choice but to continue to live in the Signal "man camps."
27. During the first two weeks of employing each Indian Employee, Defendant Signal also deducted between $100 and $200 a week from each employee's paycheck for tool kits which the Indian Employees were required to purchase from Defendant Signal.
28. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally routinely complained to Signal, on behalf of themselves and the other Indian Employees, about the food, living conditions, camp facilities, camp rules, and terms and conditions of employment at Signal. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally frequently met with fellow Indian Employees to learn of their concerns relating to the conditions under which they were forced to work by SignaL
8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 9 of 20
29. In response to these complaints, Signal personnel warned the Indian Employees to stop complaining. Signal personnel and management regularly threatened the Indian Employees that if they did not continue working for Signal or did not work to Signal's specifications they would be deported to India.
30. After complaining to Signal about the housing, food, and the overall terms and conditions of employment, the Indian Employees living in the Pascagoula "man camp" began meeting to discuss how to persuade Defendant to improve the working conditions of the Indian Employees.
31. On or about March 4, 2007, Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and other Indian Employees met with attorneys in a church near the Pascagoula facility. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss their rights as employees of Signal.
32. Signal learned of the aforementioned meeting held on or about March 4, 2007. The recruiting agent Defendant Signal used in India, Sachin Dewan, called Vijayan's wife at her home in India and warned her that Vijayan must stop making complaints about Signal or Signal would return the Indian Employees to India. Vijayan's wife informed Vijayan of this call.
33. Vijayan informed the other Indian Employees about the call which his wife had received and word spread quickly through the Pascagoula and Orange camps regarding the threats against Vijayan.
9

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 10 of 20
34. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally took leading roles in gathering information and voicing the complaints of the other Indian Employees to Signal.
35. Defendant Signal called a meeting of the Indian Employees on March 8, 2007. At this meeting, in the presence of Signal's legal counsel, Signal management told the Indian Employees that: 1) they were not being mistreated; 2) they were complaining too much; 3) management would only respond to complaints which it considered were legitimate; 4) Signal would fight back against any organizing efforts by the workers; and 5) if the workers brought any legal action against Signal, Signal would not extend the Indian employee's H-2B visas.
36. The next morning, March 9, 2007, Signal locked the gate to the Pascagoula "man camp", thereby obstructing the sole means of direct entry to and from the camp. Signal camp coordinator Darrell Snyder and approximately five security guards then swept through the bunkhouses carrying pictures of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and other Indian Employees.
37. Shortly after 5:00 a.m. on March 9, 2007, Signal forcibly transported Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and three other Indian Employees from their bunkhouse to another trailer used as a TV room. Signal's plan was to keep these employees in the room, to discharge them from employment, and then to transport them to the airport for immediate return to India. Signal's plan was only altered because Vijayan, en route to the TV room, attempted suicide by cutting his wrists.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 11 of 20
38. On March 9, 2007, Signal discharged Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. 39. Shortly after the Indian Employees arrived in the United States, and continuing until the employment of all Indian Employees ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than enjoyed by their non-Indian counterparts. 40. This unequal treatment included but was not limited to Indian Employees being assigned the most undesirable work which non-Indian employees were not asked to perform and other disparate terms and conditions of employment.
COUNT I [Title VII Hostile Work Environment Based on National Origin/Race] 41. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty (40) of this Complaint. 42. Since at least October 2006, Signal has engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Pascagoula and Orange locations in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), including subjecting the class of Indian Employees to a hostile work environment based on race and/or national ongm. 43. Signal created and perpetuated a hostile work environment against the Indian Employees based on their race and/or national origin. Signal's supervisors
11

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 12 of 20
and managers made offensive and unwanted derogatory comments about the Indian employees and engaged in a series of demeaning and discriminatory actions, specifically directed solely at the Indian Employees based on their race and/or national origin.
44. Signal's conduct was offensive, severe, unwelcome and pervasive and interfered with their working conditions. In addition to the conditions previously described in this Complaint, Signal subjected the Indian Employees to a hostile work environment, which included but was not limited to:
a) Calling the Indian Employees insulting and offensive comments based on their race and/or national origin; b) Calling the Indian Employees "thieves" and "animals"; c) Telling Indian Employees to "shut up" when Indian Employees raised complaints to Signal; d) Telling Indian Employees that the conditions In which they were living were better than the slums in India; and e) Referring to the Indian Employees as "F .. .ing Keralites", "rat[s]", "chronic whiners", and "back-stabbing whining little bitches". 45. The hostile environment that existed at Signal facilities was created and perpetuated at the direction of Signal's management and supervisory personnel with direct supervisory and/or managerial authority over the Indian Employees. 46. The unlawful hostile environment occurred with the full knowledge of Signal's management and supervisory personnel, and Signal failed to exercise
12

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 13 of 20
reasonable care either to prevent the creation of this hostile environment or to correct promptly the hostile environment once it existed.
47. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty-six (46) were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees.
48. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty-six (46) has been to deprive Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
COUNT II [Title VII National Origin/Race Discrimination:
Employment Terms & Conditions] 49. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty-eight (48) of this Complaint. 50. Since at least October, 2006, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas, facilities in violation of §702(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 51. Shortly after the Indian Employees arrived in the United States, and continuing until the employment of al Indian Employees ceased, Signal subjected
13

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 14 of 20
such employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than enjoyed by their non-Indian counterparts.
52. This unequal treatment included but was not limited to being assigned the most undesirable work which non-Indian employees were not asked to perform and other disparate terms and conditions of employment.
53. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-two (52) were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees.
54. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-two (52) has been to deprive Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
COUNT III [Title VII Retaliation] 55. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-four (54) of this Complaint. 56. Defendant Signal engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility in violation of §704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
14

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 15 of 20
2000e-3(a). 57. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, on behalf of themselves and the other
Indian Employees, opposed Signal's treatment of the Indian Employees, which they reasonably believed in good faith to constitute discrimination in violation of Title VII. Signal was aware of this opposition on the part of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. As set forth in detail in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Signal retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because they opposed Signal's discriminatory treatment of the Indian workers by increasing the severity of the discriminatory terms and conditions of their employment, forcibly detaining them against their will, and discharging them from employment, on March 9, 2007.
58. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-seven (57) were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.
59. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-seven (57) has been to deprive Vijayan, and Kadakkarappally, individually, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because they opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 16 of 20

COUNT IV

[Pattern or Practice Violation]

60. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-nine (59) of this Complaint.

61. Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting its Indian

Employees to a hostile environment and disparate terms and conditions of

employment based on their race and national origin.

62. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the

aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through sixty-one (61) were intentional, and

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees.

63. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in

aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through sixty-one (61) has been to deprive

Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees of equal

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or

16

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 17 of 20
participation with them from engaging in discrimination based on race or national origin: (1) in the terms and conditions of employment and (2) in decisions regarding workplace discipline and termination.
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from engaging in retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or national origin.
C. Order Defendant Signal to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Indian Employees and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Signal to make whole all of the Indian Employees wrongfully discharged or reduced in pay by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
E. Order Defendant Signal to make the Indian Employees whole by compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs six (6) through sixty-four (64) above, including relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses
17

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 18 of 20

not covered by the Signal's employee benefit plans in amounts to be determined at

trial.

F. Order Defendant Signal to make the Indian Employees whole by

compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

employment practices described in paragraphs six (6) through sixty-four (64)

above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of

life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Order Defendant Signal to pay the Indian Employees punitive damages

for its malicious and reckless conduct described in six (6) through sixty-four (64)

above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

public interest.

I.

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.

P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel

JAMES E. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

18

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 19 of 20
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 131 M Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20507
C. EMANUEL SMITH Regional Attorney MS State Bar No. 7473
JULIE BEAN Supervisory Trial Attorney DC Bar No. 433292
~ ,j /J11/f/~pc
STEVEN L. MURRAY v Trial Attorney DC Bar No. 379955
CHARLES E. GUERRIER Senior Trial Attorney OH Bar No. 0023546
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1130- 22nd Street South Suite 2000 Birmingham, Alabama 35205 Tel No. (205) 212-2043 Fax: (205) 212-2041
19

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 04/20/11 Page 20 of 20
ANICA C. CONNER Trial Attorney Tennessee Bar #025325 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Ave., Suite 901 Memphis, Tennessee 38104 901-544-0087 (direct) 901-544-0111 (fax)
20

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC

PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV179-LG-RHW
DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE
Before the Court is a [2] Motion to Intervene filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) by
Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, and Kurian David (Movants). The instant
lawsuit is a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against
Signal International, LLC (Signal) alleging unlawful employment practices in violation of
Section 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000e-(3). The EEOC filed
the complaint on April 20, 2011. Movants filed the instant motion on May 6, 2011, seeking
leave to file a complaint in intervention to participate in the original EEOC action.
Signal opposes the motion to intervene on several grounds: (1) the motion is premature
and therefore not timely; (2) the intervention improperly seeks to change the nature of the case;
and (3) Movant Kurian David should be excluded as an unnecessary party.
Rule 24(a) states in relevant part that
[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
Movants have not identified a specific federal statutory right to intervene in the instant lawsuit.

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 2 of 7
However, there is case law suggesting such a statutory right. See EEOC v. Wackenhut Corp., 939 F.2d 241, 243 n.5 (5th Cir. 1991). Regardless, the Court finds that the intervention should be allowed pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2). A party seeking to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) must satisfy four requirements: (1) the application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (5th Cir. 1994).
(1) Timeliness Signal argues that the intervention is untimely. Generally, a timeliness argument is raised if the motion to intervene is perceived to be filed too late. See e.g. In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, 570 F.3d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 2009); Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1205. Here, however, Signal argues that the intervention is premature. The Fifth Circuit has cautioned against granting premature motions to intervene, because there may not be enough reliable information early in the lawsuit to evaluate the motion. See Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 265 (5th Cir. 1977). To determine timeliness, the court must examine the following four factors: (1) the length of time between the intervenor learning of his interest and filing his motion; (2) the extent of prejudice that the existing parties may suffer due to the would-be intervenor's delay; (3) the extent of prejudice to the movant if his motion to intervene is denied; and (4) any unusual circumstances which may sway the court one way or the other. Id. at 264-66. The first two factors do not appear to apply because they involve a delay in intervention.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 3 of 7
In this case, the motion to intervene was filed 16 days after the complaint. Although Movants seek to intervene early in the litigation process, the cause of intervention and basis for the lawsuit is well known to the parties by virtue of the EEOC complaint and investigation that pre-dated the lawsuit. In fact two of the would-be intervenors, Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, were among those who originally filed complaints with the EEOC alleging discrimination by Signal. Even in those cases where the Fifth Circuit has expressed concern about premature intervention and the potential waste of judicial resources, the Court has done so in the context of advocating leniency for late intervenors. See e.g. Espy, 18 F.3d at 1206-07; Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 266-67. Signal does not assert any specific prejudice caused by early intervention. Although Signal was compelled as its first pleading in this Court to file a response in opposition to the motion to intervene, Signal has preserved its other rights by subsequently filing a motion for more definite statement and motion to transfer venue.
There is significant potential of prejudice to the Movants if the motion to intervene is denied. The Movants have individualized claims for damages. See American Ass’n of Retired Persons v. Farmers Group, Inc., 943 F.2d 996, (9th Cir. 1991)(holding that private litigants are not precluded from seeking individual damages in a separate lawsuit when EEOC has, in effect, eschewed doing so). Although the EEOC's litigation takes the interests of the charging parties into account, it does not transfer all private enforcement to the EEOC. See Gen. Tel. of NW v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 326 (1980). The EEOC’s complaint supplements, but does not replace, the private cause of action. Id. For example, if not allowed to intervene, the Movants will not be able to participate in the trial concerning any ruling by the court, nor will they be able to appeal any rulings by the court. John Doe #1 v. Glickman, 256 F.3d 371, 379 (5th Cir. 2001).
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 4 of 7
Consequently, the Movants interest in intervening is greater than any prejudice asserted by Signal.
Subsequent to Signal filing its opposition to the motion to intervene, the basis for its untimeliness argument (i.e. the fact that it had not been served with the complaint) has been resolved. The EEOC sent Signal a request for waiver of service on May 20, 2011, which Signal authorized and executed on July 10, 2011. Therefore, the timeliness argument lacks any practical significance at this point.
(2) Intervention Changing the Nature of the Case Signal acknowledges that Vijayan and Kdakkarappally were claimants in the initial EEOC action, and as such, would have an absolute right to intervene on their own behalf in the EEOC's lawsuit. Signal argues, however, that the motion to intervene changes the character of the action. It argues that the intervention expands the factual circumstances and claims beyond the scope of the initial EEOC complaint. Specifically, Signal argues that the allegations in the intervening complaint refer to activities that occurred outside of the United States and refer to recruiters, fees, and attorneys not mentioned in the EEOC complaint. The intervention rule is intended to prevent multiple lawsuits where common questions of law or fact are involved, but is not intended to allow the creation of whole new lawsuits by intervenors. Deus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506, 525 (5th Cir. 1994). The intervening party becomes a “party” for the purpose of protecting some right or interest. Id. With regard to EEOC complaints, the Fifth Circuit has held that their scope should not be interpreted strictly. See Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 465 (5th Cir. 1970). In liberally construing the EEOC charge, the court’s analysis "looks beyond the four corners of the document to its
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 5 of 7
substance." McClain v. Lufkin Indus., 519 F.3d 264, 273 (5th Cir. 2008). The EEOC complaint identifies the complainants as citizens of India whom Signal
recruited for employment in the United States and that the complainants “paid large amounts of money for the job opportunity.” The fact that the Movants’ proposed complaint goes into greater detail about the recruitment activities and fees paid by them does not fundamentally alter the nature of the lawsuit. Rather, a judicial complaint under Title VII is not limited to the verbatim wording of the administrative charge itself, but by the “scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Pacheco v. Norman, 448 F.3d 783, 789 (5th Cir. 2006); see also McClain, 519 F.3d at 273. The Court finds that the proposed intervention does not change the character of the lawsuit. To the extent that it expands the scope of the lawsuit, it does so in a manner that could be reasonably expected given the allegations in the underlying EEOC charge.
(3) Kurian David’s Intervention Signal also argues that Movant Kurian David should not be allowed to “piggyback” onto the complaint. Any similarly situated plaintiff is permitted to “opt-in” to an EEOC complaint, provided he or she meets certain criteria. Anson v. Univ. of Tex. Health Science Ctr., 962 F.2d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 1992); see Bettcher v. The Brown Schools, Inc., 262 F.3d 492, 493-94 (5th Cir. 2001). First, the party must have been similarly situated to the party who filed the EEOC charge. Bettcher, 262 F.3d at 494. David was one of approximately 500 Indian employees affected by Signal’s alleged discrimination. He worked and resided at Signal’s Texas facility. While the other Movants were employed at the Mississippi facility, the alleged conditions and bases for
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 6 of 7
discrimination are virtually identical. Thus, the Court finds that David is similarly situated to the other Movants.
Second, the charges must have provided Defendant some notice of the collective or classwide nature of the charge. Id. Signal knew from the outset of this complaint that the potential class of employees was the 500 Indian citizens who received H-2B guest worker permits to work as welders and pipe fitters for Signal. Not only was Signal aware of the class-wide nature of the discrimination complaint, it knew with substantial precision and specificity the identity of the class members.
Finally, piggybacking under the single filing ruling is available only if the person who filed the EEOC charges has actually filed a lawsuit that the piggybacking plaintiff may join. Id. In this case, the plaintiffs upon whose claims David is piggybacking are his co-Movants for intervention. Since the Court has concluded that the co-Movants (Vijayan and Kadakkarappally) should be permitted to intervene in the EEOC complaint, David may in turn piggyback onto their lawsuit. It would be a waste of time and judicial resources, as well as a triumph of form over substance, to require David to re-file his motion to intervene rather than allow his claim to piggyback with his co-Movants in a simultaneously filed motion.
Given the nearly identical factual circumstances and legal theories behind David’s intervention, the Court finds that he should be permitted to intervene, either as an intervention of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1) or (2), or by permissive joinder pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B). A factor that would militate in favor of joinder pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) is the fact that David worked in Signal’s Texas facility, rather than the Mississippi facility. Consequently, David is so situated that his interests might not be adequately protected by his co-Movants, who are litigating
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 44 Filed 01/24/12 Page 7 of 7 regarding conditions at the Mississippi facility. Regardless, David “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). In fact, the questions of law and fact are nearly identical to those raised by David’s co-Movants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [2] Motion to Intervene is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of January, 2012. s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SABULAL VIJAYAN, JACOB JOSEPH

)

KADAKKARAPPALLY, and

)

KURIAN DAVID

)

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-cv-00179-LG-RHW
CLASS COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

CLASS COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Preliminary Statement 1. Defendant Signal International, LLC (“Signal”), a major Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas-based rig and ship fabrication and repair company, forced Plaintiff-Intervenors Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, and Kurian David (“Plaintiff-Intervenors”) and other Indian H-2B workers (“the Indian Workers”) to live in overcrowded, unsanitary, and guarded “man camps” for which these workers paid dearly. For a 6 foot by 3 foot top or bottom bunk with barely enough headroom to sit up in a room shared with as many as 23 other men, which Signal itself acknowledged was not compliant with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”), and food prepared by an outfit that Signal management said would be shut down if the Health Department ever inspected it, Signal required the Plaintiff-Intervenors to
1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 23
pay astronomical rent -- $ 1,050 per month. The Plaintiff-Intervenors, however, also paid with their health, their freedom, and their livelihoods. 2. Among Signal’s many employees at its two production sites, only the Indian Workers were required to pay these exorbitant rent charges and only the Indian Workers lived in the man camps. Signal specifically intended the man camps to be for Indians Workers only; segregated and isolated to such an extent that visitors – be they close relatives, friends, language teachers, clergy, or legal services providers – were not allowed to enter the compound. Indeed, Defendant Signal would not have subjected, and did not subject, its non-Indian workforce to these conditions. 3. Plaintiff-Intervenors and the other Indian Workers arrived at Signal having paid as much as $20,000 to Signal’s labor recruiters and attorney. To work at Signal, Plaintiff-Intervenors were required to apply through these specific recruiters and attorney, and therefore they had no choice but to pay these fees. When some workers sought to come to Signal directly without going through these recruiters and this attorney, Signal refused to allow them to do so. For the Indian Workers, fees of this size required selling possessions of value, mortgaging futures, and entering into desperate debt. No non-Indian Signal employees were required to use a specific recruiter, nor did any non-Indian Signal employees arrive at Signal having paid this amount of money to any recruiter. 4. Signal also subjected the Plaintiff-Intervenors and others to abusive treatment based on their race and/or national origin. Signal referred to Indian Workers by their Signal employee numbers and not by their names. Signal supervisors and management used derogatory language to demean the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers, including referring to them as “thieves” and “animals”; telling them to “shut up” when they raised complaints to Signal; saying
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 3 of 23
that the man camps were better than the Indian Workers’ homes in India; and referring to Indian Workers as “F…ing Keralite,” “rat[s],” “chronic whiners,” and “back-stabbing whining little bitches.” This race and national origin based treatment created a hostile work environment for the Plaintiff-Intervenors and the other Indian Workers. 5. Signal assigned Plaintiff-Intervenors to the most dangerous, difficult, and dirty jobs on the rigs they were repairing, at times without adequate safety procedures in place. PlaintiffIntervenors believe they were assigned to these posts because of their race and national origin because few non-Indian Workers received such unwanted assignments. 6. Plaintiff-Intervenors Sabulal Vijayan and Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally complained to Signal management about these unwanted and unhealthful living and working conditions and tried to meet with other workers to coordinate a response. After engaging in these activities, on March 9, 2007, Signal rounded them up in a public display designed to intimidate the other Indian workers, imprisoned Kadakkarappally in a guarded room to await forced deportation, and attempted to so detain Vijayan. Only the attention of the media and the arrival of the local police, along with a gathering of concerned supporters outside Signal’s gates and a suicide attempt by Vijayan, who decided he would rather die than be forced to return to his crippling debt in India, thwarted the deportation. In all, the March 9 incident – which Signal itself has referred to as “Black Friday” – was a flagrant effort to retaliate against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally for complaining about Signal’s illegal, inhumane, and discriminatory treatment. 7. Plaintiff-Intervenors therefore join the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in this suit to vindicate their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 4 of 23
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a case arising under the laws of the United States; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(d), as a case seeking relief under an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), as a case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 9. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). This action also may be appropriately venued in other districts.
The Parties Plaintiff 10. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is a federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII. Plaintiffs-Intervenors 11. Plaintiff-Intervenor Sabulal Vijayan was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Vijayan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007. 12. Vijayan filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on or around April 12, 2007. 13. On or around September 14, 2009, the EEOC Area Director issued a Determination to Vijayan finding reasonable cause to believe that the Defendant Signal (who was the Respondent to Vijayan’s Charges of Discrimination) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 14. Plaintiff-Intervenor Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Kadakkarappally worked
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 5 of 23
for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007. 15. Kadakkarappally filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on or around April 12, 2007. 16. On or around September 14, 2009, the EEOC Area Director issued a Determination to Kadakkarappally finding reasonable cause to believe that the Defendant Signal (who was the Respondent to Kadakkarappally’s Charges of Discrimination) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 17. Plaintiff-Intervenor Kurian David was recruited in 2006 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, David worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 18. At all times relevant to this action, David was similarly situated to Plaintiff-Intervenors Vijayan and Kadakkarappally and to the other Indian Workers. 19. Plaintiff-Intervenors and the other Indian Workers are of Asian race and are Indian nationals. Defendant 20. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal, a Delaware corporation, has been doing business in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and in Orange, Texas. Signal is engaged in the business of building and repairing ships and off-shore oil rigs. 21. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Signal has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 6 of 23
THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT 22. Defendant Signal, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, was unable to obtain a sufficient number of qualified and reliable pipe fitters and welders to meet the demands of its work load. 23. Defendant Signal, to meet this need, arranged to bring into the United States approximately 500 Indian men (the Indian Workers) through the federal government’s H-2B guestworker program. 24. Defendant Signal entered into contracts with United States-based recruiter Michael Pol d/b/a Global Resources, Inc. (collectively “Pol”); United States-based attorney Malvern C. Burnett d/b/a Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (collectively “Burnett”); and India-based recruiter Sachin Dewan d/b/a Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd a/k/a Medtech Consultants (collectively “Dewan”) (Pol, Burnett, and Dewan collectively referred to as “the Recruiters”). 25. When Defendant Signal entered into a contract with the Recruiters in April 2006, the representatives of Signal who executed the contract knew that Signal would not pay any recruitment fee, service charge, transportation expense, visa issuance fee, legal fee, or any other fee, expense, charge or money whatsoever to the Recruiters for any part of the recruitment, processing, arrangement, or transportation of the Indian Workers. 26. At that time, the representatives of Signal who executed the contract knew that the Indian Workers themselves would pay these fees, expenses, and charges to the Recruiters. 27. The Indian Workers in fact each paid up to $20,000 U.S. Dollars to the Recruiters. Specifically, Plaintiff-Intervenor Vijayan paid approximately $12,670, Kadakkarappally paid approximately $13,226, and David paid approximately $13,000.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 7 of 23
28. At all relevant times, Signal would not accept Indian workers who did not use the Recruiters’ services. 29. At all relevant times, the Recruiters acted as Signal’s agents and all actions the Recruiters took during the recruitment process were with Signal’s express or implied authority. 30. No welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, paid recruitment fees in amounts comparable to the amounts the Indian Workers paid. 31. Upon information and belief, no welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, paid recruitment fees that exceeded a few hundred dollars. 32. Upon information and belief, no welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, began their employment in debt as a product of recruitment fees. 33. No welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, were required to use the Recruiters, nor any particular recruiter, in order to obtain employment at Signal. 34. The Indian Workers were hired by Signal to provide labor and services at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas, locations. 35. The first Indian Workers arrived in the end of October 2006. Additional workers came to the United States in groups of 30 to 50 workers at a time until approximately March 2007. 36. Signal brought over a total of just under 500 Indian Workers to the United States, sending approximately 288 workers to its facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and approximately 200 workers to its facility in Orange, Texas. 37. At each location, the Indian Workers were required to live in modular trailers called “man camps.” Signal built the “man camps” for the exclusive use of the Indian Workers. No other Signal employees were required to live in the “man camps.”
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 8 of 23
38. Before the Indian Workers were permitted to begin work, Signal required them to sign employment and housing agreements. These agreements were written in English, few of the Indian Workers read or understood English well, and Signal did not give the Indian Workers adequate time to read or understand these documents. 39. One of these agreements allowed Signal to deduct $35 a day (or approximately $1050 per month) from each Indian Worker’s earnings to reimburse Signal for the cost of providing food, accommodations, and transportation for each such Indian Worker. Under this agreement Signal could continue to deduct this amount from the worker’s salary even if the Indian Worker elected not to eat the meals provided by Signal and not to live in the accommodations provided by Signal. These deductions also applied to days when for which the Indian Workers were not paid, such as holidays, sick days, weekends, and days with inclement weather where workers were unable to work. 40. The “man camps” were located on Signal property in isolated, industrial areas miles removed from shopping areas, places of worship, and residential communities. The camps were enclosed by fences and accessible only through a single guarded entrance. 41. Signal assigned numbers to each Indian Worker and used these numbers as a form of identification and reference rather than using the employee’s name. 42. Signal camp personnel and supervisors used offensive language in speaking with and/or referring to the Indian Workers and insulted the Indian Workers on the basis of their race and/or national origin. 43. Signal guards monitored the comings and goings of the Indian Workers by requiring them to show their employee identification badges. Signal guards also searched the packages and bags of Indian Workers when they entered the camps.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 9 of 23
44. Except on rare occasions, the Indian Workers were not permitted to receive visitors in the “man camps.” 45. The “man camps” were composed of a series of one room trailers connected by elevated walkways. Most of the trailers were for sleeping and were referred to as “bunkhouses.” Up to twenty-four men were housed in each bunkhouse, sleeping in two-tiered bunk beds. The bunk beds were so tightly packed in the bunkhouses that it was difficult for the Indian Workers to move about in the narrow passageways between bunks. Signal recognized that the bunkhouses were not compliant with the requirements of OSHA and decided against making them OSHA compliant by having fewer Indian Workers in each bunkhouse because doing so would be too “onerous” for Signal. 46. The bunkhouses had insufficient toileting and bathing facilities for the twenty-four men. The Indian Workers were forced to rise early to take their place in line for the few toilets and showers in each trailer. 47. Privacy was non-existent for the Indian Workers. The Indian Workers experienced extreme difficulty sleeping due to the constant noise resulting from the close quarters and the comings and goings of workers who worked on different shifts but were housed closely together in the same bunkhouses. Signal also had control over when the lights were turned on and when the lights were turned off in the bunkhouses as even that decision was not left up to the Indian Workers. 48. Signal personnel conducted surprise searches of the bunkhouses, including searches of the Indian Workers’ personal belongings.
9

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 10 of 23
49. The Indian Workers took their meals in mess halls which were part of the “man camps.” The mess halls were only open during limited hours, set by Signal. The food provided by Signal was of poor quality and was frequently bad, stale or molded. 50. As a result of unsanitary conditions, sickness was rampant in the camps, and the Indian Workers sometimes required hospitalization. 51. The “man camps” had rules, enforced by Signal guards. The penalty for breaking rules was $250 for the first violation and $500 for a second violation. 52. When the Indian Workers complained and asked to live outside the labor camps, Signal told the workers that even if they lived outside the camps, Signal would continue to deduct the $35/day charge from the Indian Workers’ weekly wages. As a result, the Indian Workers reasonably felt that they had no choice but to continue to live in the Signal “man camps.” No non-Indian Signal employees who lived outside the camps had such deductions taken from their wages. 53. During the first two weeks of employing each Indian Worker, Signal also deducted between $100 and $200 a week from each employee’s paycheck for tool kits which the Indian Workers were required to purchase from Signal. On information and belief, Signal did not require non-Indian workers to buy tools from Signal. 54. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally routinely complained to Signal, on behalf of themselves and the other Indian Workers, about the food, living conditions, camp facilities, camp rules, and terms and conditions of employment at Signal. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally frequently met with fellow Indian Workers to learn of their concerns relating to the conditions under which they were forced to work by Signal.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 11 of 23
55. In response to these complaints, Signal personnel warned the Indian Workers to stop complaining. Signal personnel and management regularly threatened the Indian Workers that if they did not continue working for Signal or did not work to Signal’s specifications, they would be deported to India. 56. After Signal ignored the Indian Workers’ complaints regarding housing, food, and terms and conditions of employment, the Indian Workers living in the Pascagoula “man camp” continued meeting to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve the working conditions of the Indian Workers. 57. On or about March 4, 2007, Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and other Indian workers met with attorneys in a church near the Pascagoula facility. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss their rights as employees of Signal. 58. Signal learned of the aforementioned meeting held on or about March 4, 2007. The recruiting agent Signal used in India, Sachin Dewan, called Vijayan’s wife at her home in India and warned her that Vijayan must stop making complaints about Signal or Signal would return the Indian Workers to India. Vijayan’s wife informed Vijayan of this call. 59. Vijayan informed the other Indian Workers about the call which his wife had received and word spread quickly through the Pascagoula and Orange camps regarding the threats against Vijayan. 60. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally took leading roles in gathering information and voicing the complaints of the other Indian Workers to Signal. 61. Signal called a meeting of the Indian Workers on or about March 8, 2007. At this meeting, Signal management told the Indian Workers that Signal would fight back against any organizing efforts by the workers and that if Indian Workers brought any legal action against
11

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 12 of 23
Signal, Signal would not extend any of the Indian Workers’ H-2B visas, despite Signal’s previous promises of extensions. 62. The next morning, March 9, 2007, Signal locked the gate to the Pascagoula “man camp”, thereby obstructing the sole means of direct entry to and exit from the camp. Signal camp coordinator Darrell Snyder and approximately five security guards then swept through the bunkhouses carrying pictures of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and other Indian Workers. 63. Shortly after 5:00 a.m. on March 9, 2007, Signal forcibly transported Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and three other Indian Workers from their bunkhouse to another trailer used as a TV room. Signal’s plan was to keep these employees in the room, to discharge them from employment, and then to transport them to the airport for immediate return to India. Signal’s plan was altered with regard to Vijayan because he attempted suicide by cutting his wrist. The other workers were placed in the TV room and kept there by guards who had instructions from Signal not to let the workers leave the room. 64. On March 9, 2007, Signal discharged Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because of their complaints, organizing efforts, and discussions of discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. 65. Starting with the mandatory use of the Recruiters and continuing until the employment of all Indian Workers ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than those enjoyed by their non-Indian counterparts. 66. This unequal treatment included, but was not limited to, Indian Workers being assigned the most undesirable work at the facilities which non-Indian Workers were not asked to perform, harassment and insults based on the workers’ race and national origin, mandatory subjection to inferior living conditions in the man camps where no non-Indian workers were required to live,
12

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 13 of 23
mandatory rent and meal deductions, mandatory use of the Recruiters who required payment of high recruitment fees, and other disparate terms and conditions of employment.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 67. Claims for damages for Signal’s violations of Title VII contained in Counts I, II, and IV are brought by the Plaintiff-Intervenors on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 68. Class claims for compensatory and punitive damages are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). For the purposes of compensatory and punitive damages, the class consists of all Indian Workers who paid recruitment fees and/or other amounts to the Recruiters, and who were employed by Signal at any time in 2006, 2007, and/or 2008.
Rule 23(a) 69. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to Signal, but the class is believed to include approximately 500 individuals. Because of the number of class members and because the class members are foreign nationals and migrant workers, joinder of all class members is impracticable. 70. This action involves questions of law common to the class, including, but not limited to:
a. Whether Signal’s conduct as set forth in Counts I, II, and IV violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
b. The nature of damages available to Plaintiff-Intervenors and other class members, including the applicability of compensatory and/or punitive damages.
71. This action involves questions of fact common to the class, including but not limited to:
13

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 14 of 23
a. Whether Signal treated the Indian Workers differently from their non-Indian employees by requiring them to pay 35 dollars per day to live in the man camps described herein;
b. Whether Signal treated the Indian Workers differently from their non-Indian employees by requiring the Indian Workers to obtain employment at Signal through the Recruiters, who charged exorbitant recruitment fees;
c. Whether Signal treated the Indian Workers differently from their non-Indian employees by assigning the Indian Workers to the least desirable jobs; and
d. Whether Signal created a hostile work environment for the Indian Workers by subjecting them to slurs and epithets based on the Indian Workers’ race and national origin.
72. The claims of the Plaintiff-Intervenors asserted in Counts I, II, and IV are typical of the claims of the class. 73. The Plaintiff-Intervenors will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 74. Counsel for the Plaintiff-Intervenors are experienced in handling class action litigation on behalf of migrant workers like Plaintiff-Intervenors and are prepared to advance the costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 15 of 23
Rule 23(b)(3) 75. Common questions of law and fact relevant to Counts I, II, and IV, as identified above, predominate over any pertinent questions involving only individual class members. 76. A class action is superior to other available methods of adjudicating the claims set forth in Counts I, II, and IV because, inter alia:
a. Common issues of law and fact, as identified in part above, substantially diminish the interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
b. The class members are foreign nationals and migrant workers who lack the means and/or resources to secure individual legal assistance, and are particularly likely to be unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims; and
c. A class action can be managed with efficiency and without undue difficulty because Signal has systematically and regularly committed the violations complained of herein and has used standardized recordkeeping and employment practices throughout the time period at issue.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 16 of 23
COUNT I
[Title VII Hostile Work Environment Based on National Origin/Race] [Class Claim]
77. Plaintiff-Intervenors incorporate and reassert the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 76 of this Complaint in Intervention. 78. Since at least October 2006, Signal has engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Pascagoula and Orange locations in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a), including subjecting the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other Indian Workers to a hostile work environment based on race and/or national origin. 79. Signal created and perpetuated a hostile work environment against the PlaintiffIntervenors and other Indian Workers based on their race and/or national origin. Signal’s supervisors and managers made offensive and unwanted derogatory comments about the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other Indian Workers and engaged in a series of demeaning and discriminatory actions, specifically directed solely at the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other Indian Workers based on their race and/or national origin. 80. Signal’s conduct was offensive, severe, unwelcome and pervasive and interfered with the Indian Workers’ working conditions. Signal subjected the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other Indian Workers to a hostile work environment, which included but was not limited to:
a. Calling the Indian Workers insulting and offensive comments based on their race and/or national origin;
b. Calling the Indian Workers “thieves” and “animals”; c. Telling Indian Workers to “shut up” when Indian Workers raised complaints to
Signal;
16

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 17 of 23
d. Telling Indian Workers that the conditions in the man camps were better than the workers’ homes in India; and
e. Referring to the Indian Workers as “F…ing Keralite”, “rat[s]”, “chronic whiners”, and “back-stabbing whining little bitches”.
81. The hostile environment that existed at Signal facilities was created and perpetuated at the direction of Signal’s management and supervisory personnel with direct supervisory and/or managerial authority over the Plaintiff-Intervenors and other Indian Workers. 82. The unlawful hostile environment occurred with the full knowledge of Signal’s management and supervisory personnel, and Signal failed to exercise reasonable care either to prevent the creation of this hostile environment or to correct promptly the hostile environment once it existed. 83. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 82 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, David, and similarly situated Indian Workers. 84. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 83 has been to deprive Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, David and similarly situated Indian Workers of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
17

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 18 of 23
COUNT II [Title VII National Origin/Race Discrimination:
Employment Terms & Conditions] [Class Claim]
85. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 84 of this Complaint. 86. Starting with the mandatory use of the Recruiters by all Indian Workers, and continuing until the employment of all Indian Workers ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than enjoyed by their non-Indian counterparts. These employment practices violated § 702(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 87. This unequal treatment included but was not limited to
a. Effectively requiring the Indian Workers, but no non-Indian employees, to live in segregated, overcrowded, guarded, and unsafe man camps by charging mandatory room and board fees of 35 dollars per day (or otherwise charging these fees only to the Indian Workers and not Signal’s non-Indian employees who lived off-site);
b. assigning the Indian Workers the most undesirable work at the facilities, which non-Indian Workers were not asked to perform;
c. requiring the Indian workers to obtain employment at Signal through two labor recruiters and an attorney who charged exorbitant fees up to $20,000, but not requiring non-Indian workers to use any particular recruiter or to pay such recruitment fees; and
d. other disparate terms and conditions of employment.
18

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 19 of 23
88. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 87 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, David, and similarly situated Indian Workers. 89. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 88 has been to deprive Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, David, and similarly situated Indian Workers of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
COUNT III [Title VII Retaliation] [Individual Claim for Plaintiff-Intervenors Vijayan and Kadakkarappally]
90. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 89 of this Complaint in Intervention. 91. Defendant Signal engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility in violation of § 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 92. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, on behalf of themselves and the other Indian Workers, opposed Signal’s discriminatory treatment of the Indian Workers. Signal was aware of this opposition on the part of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. As set forth in detail in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention, Signal retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally by increasing the severity of the discriminatory terms and conditions of their employment, and, on March 9, 2007, forcibly detaining them against their will and discharging them from employment because they opposed Signal’s discriminatory treatment of the Indian Workers.
19

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 20 of 23
93. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 92 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. 94. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 93 has been to deprive Vijayan, and Kadakkarappally, individually, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because they opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII. This unlawful conduct resulted in emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.
COUNT IV [Pattern or Practice Violation]
[Class Claim] 95. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 94 of this Complaint in Intervention. 96. Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting its Indian Workers to a hostile environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment based on their race and national origin. The practices complained of above were applied through uniform policies that only affected the Indian Workers. 97. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 96 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, David and similarly situated Indian Workers. 98. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 97 has been to deprive Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, David and similarly situated Indian
20

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 21 of 23
Workers of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Grant the injunctive and prospective relief set forth in the Complaint of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Rec. Doc. 1, Prayer for Relief at ¶¶ A – C); B. Certify this action, with the exception of Count III, as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); C. Order Signal to make the Indian Workers whole by compensating them for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10 through 98 above, including recruitment fees, relocation expenses, medical expenses, and room and board charges; D. Order Signal to make Plaintiff-Intervenors Vijayan and Kadakkarappally whole by compensating them for non-pecuniary losses resulting from the retaliation set forth in Count III, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Signal to pay the Indian Workers punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described herein; F. Award Plaintiff-Intervenors the costs in this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of February, 2012,
21

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 22 of 23

/s/ Sheila A. Bedi Sheila A. Bedi (Resident Attorney) Mississippi Bar No. 101652 Sheila.bedi@splcenter.org Shakti Belway Mississippi Bar No. 102095 Shakti.belway@splcenter.org Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
/s/ Thomas P. Fritzsche Thomas P. Fritzsche (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 940482 Tom.Fritzsche@splcenter.org Daniel Werner (pro hac vice) (Lead Counsel) Georgia Bar No. 3969839 Daniel.werner@splcenter.org Naomi Tsu (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 507612 Naomi.tsu@splcenter.org Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857

Alan B. Howard (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 2136661 ahoward@dl.com Hugh Sandler (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4712584 hsandler@dl.com Joseph Bjarnson (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4774055 jbjarnson@dl.com Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 General: (212) 259-8000
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4136966 cbhatnagar@aclu.org Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street – 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7840
Ivy Suriyopas (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4406385 isuriyopas@aaldef.org Asian American Legal Defense
and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10013 Telephone: (212) 966-5932

22

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 02/03/12 Page 23 of 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of February, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to counsel of record for all parties in this case. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas P. Fritzsche Thomas P. Fritzsche Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors
23

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, and SABULAL VIJAYAN, JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY, and KURIAN DAVID

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CAUSE NO. 1:11CV179-LG-RHW

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

BEFORE THE COURT is the [26] Motion to Stay and Transfer Pursuant to

the First-Filed Rule filed by Defendant Signal International, LLC ("Signal"). Signal

seeks a stay of these proceedings and asks the Court to transfer this action to the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where, Signal

claims, a "closely related . . . earlier suit is pending." Plaintiff Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has filed a response [29] opposing the motion.

The Court has reviewed the parties' briefs and relevant law, and finds that the

motion to stay and transfer should be granted. The EEOC filed a [34] Motion to

Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply Memorandum Further Supporting Motion to

Stay and Transfer. The motion to strike should be denied as moot.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The EEOC filed this Title VII action against Signal in April 2011. The

complaint seeks to "correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national

origin, race, and retaliation." The lawsuit arises from charges filed with the EEOC

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 12
by two Indian national employees, Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. According to the complaint, the EEOC issued Determinations with respect to those charges, concluding that Signal had discriminated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally and other Indian employees as a class, and that it had retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because they opposed Signal's conduct. The complaint seeks relief for Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, as well as "a class of over 500 similarly situated Indian nationals" who were brought to the United States from India to work at Signal facilities in Mississippi and Texas. The complaint includes several claims against Signal under Title VII, including allegations of a hostile work environment based on race and/or national origin, "disparate, segregated, and discriminatory treatment" in the terms and conditions of employment, retaliation, and a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and/or national origin.
Signal seeks a stay and transfer of the EEOC's action ("the present action") to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Signal argues that the present action is closely related to a similar lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana in March 2008, David, et al. v. Signal, et al., No. 2:08-CV-1220-JCZ-DEK (hereinafter "David"). Signal submits that under the "first filed" rule, this case should be transferred so that its issues can be resolved with David.
The EEOC is not a party to David, but Signal is one of twelve defendants in that action.1 The plaintiffs in David are a number of Indian nationals who were
1 The David Defendants are: Signal International L.L.C; Malvern C. Burnett; Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.; Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett,
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 3 of 12
Signal employees, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally (the charging parties in the present action).2 Three of the named plaintiffs in David moved, individually and on behalf of the class of similarly-situated Indian nationals, to intervene in the EEOC's action in this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. See Mot. to Intervene, Ex. 2, ECF No. 2-2. The motion to intervene was granted on January 24, 2012. See Order Granting Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 44. Intervenor Plaintiffs in this action are Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, and Kurian David.
The David complaint asserts "class action claims arising from violations of" the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and claims of fraud/negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.3 Several plaintiffs, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, also bring individual claims of retaliation under § 1981 and § 1985, and claims of false imprisonment, assault, battery, and infliction of emotional
A.P.C.; Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C.; Kurella Rao; J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi; Billy R. Wilks; J & M Marine & Industrial, L.L.C.; Global Resources, Inc.; Michael Pol; Sachin Dewan; and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a MedTech Consultants). Signal has also filed claims against a third-party defendant, Zito Companies, LLC.
2 A group of approximately five hundred Indian nationals (the same group on whose behalf the EEOC filed the present suit) had sought class certification in David under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the motion to certify the class on January 4, 2012. See Def.'s Notice of Supplemental Authority, Ex. 1, ECF No. 42-1.
3 The plaintiffs in David have filed a complaint and two amended complaints. 3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 4 of 12
distress. The complaint in David does not allege violations of Title VII, but the plaintiffs' Section 1981 retaliation claims are based on allegations of employment discrimination against Defendant Signal. See Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 333-345, David et al. v. Signal et al., No. 2:08-cv-1220-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.), ECF No. 944.
DISCUSSION I. Motion to Stay and Transfer Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule The "first to file" rule permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when it involves the same parties and issues as a previously-filed action in another court. When related cases are pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may dismiss or transfer the case if it involves substantially similar issues which can be resolved in the earlier-filed action. See W. Gulf Mar. Ass'n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 728-29 (5th Cir. 1985) and Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir.1997). "The concern manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result." W. Gulf Mar. Ass'n, 751 F.2d at 728. The Court's inquiry is focused on whether the two cases "substantially overlap," but where the overlap is "less than complete, the judgment is made case by case, based on such factors as the extent of overlap, the likelihood of conflict, the comparative advantage and the interest of each forum in resolving the dispute.” Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 951. The first-to-file rule is a discretionary doctrine.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 5 of 12
Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183-84 (1952)). It is not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied. Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1971). The decision of whether to apply the first-to-file rule involves determinations concerning "[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation." Kerotest, 342 U.S. at 183.
In support of its motion, Signal essentially argues two major points: (i) that the issues and parties in the two actions are similar enough to invoke the first-tofile rule and transfer the present action to the Eastern District of Louisiana; and (ii) the relevant "equitable considerations" under the first-to-file rule further warrant a transfer. In response, the EEOC acknowledges that David was filed first, but argues that the motion to transfer should be denied because (i) the first-to-file rule is not applicable in this case because there are differences between the parties and the issues, and (ii) venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The Issues Signal argues that because David alleges intentional employment discrimination in violation of § 1981 and § 1985, the issues in David are substantially similar to the Title VII claims in the present action. Essentially, Signal argues that in both actions, the plaintiffs will be required to prove intentional discrimination on the part of Signal. Signal submits that the Court's inquiry into the defendant's discriminatory intent or motive will be the same under
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 6 of 12
Title VII and § 1981 and § 1985. In response, the EEOC argues that the claims and issues in David are vastly
different from those in the present action, and the two cases do not substantially overlap. The David complaint does not include claims under Title VII, but alleges claims under a range of statutes, including, but not limited to, the TVPA, RICO, the Thirteenth Amendment, and the FLSA. The EEOC argues that in comparison, the present action is much smaller in scope, as it only alleges that one defendant violated Title VII. While the EEOC concedes that the § 1981 and retaliation claims in David are similar to those in the present action, it argues this is not sufficient to find that the present action is "duplicative" of David.
The employment discrimination claims in David are similar to the Title VII claims brought by the EEOC in the present action, and they appear to arise from the same conduct on the part of Signal. The Court's examination of Signal's discriminatory conduct under Title VII would likely be very similar to an inquiry into the same conduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. "[T]he inquiry into intentional discrimination is essentially the same for individual actions brought under sections 1981 . . . and Title VII.” Lauderdale v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, Inst. Div., 512 F.3d 157, 166 (5th Cir. 2007). Presumably, the same or similar evidence would be used to support § 1981 claims and Title VII claims. It follows that the discovery necessary to litigate the employment discrimination claims in David would likely be duplicative of discovery in the present action. The Court finds that, because the employment discrimination claims arise from the same conduct, and in light of the
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 7 of 12
likely duplication of discovery of those claims, the similarity of issues weighs in favor of a transfer.
The Parties Signal argues that "David was voluntarily filed by the same Indian nationals for whose benefit the present suit was filed." (Def.'s Mem. at 7, ECF No. 27). Signal also asserts that David seeks individual relief for Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, who were the charging parties in the present action. The EEOC submits that it is not a party to David, and that it has no right to intervene in that case because the plaintiffs in David never received a notice of right to sue from the EEOC, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), and have not alleged a Title VII claim in their complaint. The EEOC does concede that several of the David plaintiffs moved to intervene in the present action. As noted supra, that motion has been granted. The intervention of the private plaintiffs in this action has resulted in greater similarity of parties between the present action and David than when this action was originally filed. Intervenor Plaintiffs in this action are Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, and Kurian David; each of these individuals is a named plaintiff in David. The Court also notes that the EEOC brings this suit on behalf of the same group of Indian nationals who filed David. However, the EEOC is not a party to David, and there are eleven other defendants in David who are not parties to the present action. The Court also recognizes that the Title VII claims in this suit are brought by the EEOC, and the EEOC is a distinct entity from the plaintiffs
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 8 of 12
in David. As an agency of the United States, the EEOC litigates on behalf of the public interest as well as the aggrieved individuals, and therefore its interests in this action differ to some degree from the private plaintiffs. See EEOC v. Harris Chernin, Inc., 10 F.3d 1286, 1291 (7th Cir. 1993) ("The EEOC['s] interests are broader than those of the individuals injured by discrimination.") (citations omitted).
However, the first-filed rule does not require that the cases and the parties be identical. Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950. The Fifth Circuit has held that the "crucial inquiry is one of 'substantial overlap." Id. “[R]egardless of whether or not the suits here are identical, if they overlap on the substantive issues, the cases would be required to be consolidated in ... the jurisdiction first seized of the issues.” Id. (citing Mann Mfg., Inc., 439 F.2d at 408 n. 6 and TPM Holdings, Inc. v. Intra-Gold Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996)). While the parties in these two actions are not identical because the claims in David are more numerous and diverse, the employment discrimination claims in David are made only against Defendant Signal, just as the Title VII claims in the present action are against Signal. It is apparent that the Title VII claims in the present action are based on the same alleged conduct by Signal that forms the basis for the Section 1981 claims in David. Therefore, the substantive issues involved in the retaliation and employment-based claims in this action are similar to those in David, and the litigation of these claims will involve several of the same parties as those in David.
Equitable Considerations 8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 9 of 12
Signal also argues that the "equitable considerations" of the first-to-file rule weigh in favor of transfer. In support of this assertion, Signal submits that the EEOC's filing of this case represents a "collateral attack" on the David Court's ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (Def.'s Mem. at 13). Specifically, Signal asserts that the timing of the case before this Court is "suspicious" because it was filed exactly five months after the plaintiffs in David suffered an adverse ruling with respect to their claims for class-wide injunctive relief. See Def.'s Ex. C, ECF No. 27-3) (transcript of hearing in which Judge Zainey ruled that plaintiffs did not have standing to seek future injunctive relief against Signal). Signal argues that this action, therefore, "looks like a collateral attack on the first court's ruling." (Def.'s Mem. at 12, ECF No. 27).
The Court is not convinced that the EEOC's filing of the present action is a collateral attack on the David Court's ruling regarding class-wide injunctive relief based on Signal's assertions in its brief. Any finding with respect to the timing of the EEOC's lawsuit would be highly speculative on the part of the Court. The Court will not grant the motion to transfer on this basis.
Venue The EEOC argues that venue of the present action is not proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and therefore the motion to transfer should be denied. The EEOC argues that venue is proper in the Southern District of Mississippi under Title VII because most of the alleged unlawful practices occurred
9

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 10 of 12
in this district, and Signal's principal place of business is in Mississippi.4 Signal argues that the issue of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not
relevant to the question of whether to transfer this action pursuant to the first-filed rule. Signal also points out that the David plaintiffs chose the Eastern District of Louisiana as their forum. Of course, the same argument can be made for the EEOC in the present action; as the plaintiff, the EEOC chose this forum in which to litigate this action. However, the EEOC is a federal agency with an office in New Orleans. It seems that the EEOC would be equally capable of litigating an action in New Orleans as it would in this district. While Signal's place of business may be in Mississippi, it is currently defending the David action in Louisiana with counsel located in New Orleans. As Signal points out, the individual intervenor plaintiffs in this action chose to file the David action in Louisiana, and continue to litigate there. Therefore, those plaintiffs are available to the EEOC in Louisiana. The EEOC does not argue that any witnesses or evidence will be less available to it in Louisiana than in this district. The distance between this district and the Eastern District of Louisiana is not great. The Court does not see that the parties will lack access to necessary resources by litigating this action in the Eastern District of
4 The EEOC submits that the explicit Title VII venue provision applies to this action, which provides that venue is proper in "any district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed," or in the district where "the employment records relevant to such practices are maintained or administered," or in the district where "the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Title VII further provides that if the defendant is not in any of these districts, then an action may be filed in the district in which the defendant's principal office is located. Id.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 11 of 12
Louisiana. "The Fifth Circuit adheres to the general rule that the court in which an
action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed." Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950 (citing West Gulf Maritime Ass'n, 751 F.2d at 728, and Mann Mfg., Inc., 439 F.2d at 408). The Court finds that, given that these two actions arise from the same conduct, the similarity of the substantive issues involved in the employment discrimination and retaliation claims alleged in the two actions, and the similarity of the parties, Signal's motion to stay and transfer should be granted. II. The EEOC's Motion to Strike
The EEOC has moved to strike portions of Signal's reply memorandum in support of its Motion to Stay or Transfer [33] on the grounds that new arguments were raised in the reply brief. Specifically, Signal made arguments under the Fifth Circuit's decision in Truvillion v. King's Daughters Hospital, 614 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1980), and asks the Court to consider invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and certify this issue to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither of these arguments were raised in Signal's initial motion.
Signal asserts that under Truvillion v. King's Daughters Hospital, 614 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1980), the EEOC could have intervened in David if it issued right to sue letters nunc pro tunc. Truvillion held that where the EEOC files an action that is dismissed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, and the EEOC does not file a second action, "it may validly issue a right-to-sue letter to an aggrieved person," so
11

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 52 Filed 02/29/12 Page 12 of 12 that the private plaintiff could file his or her own action. 614 F.2d at 528. Here, the EEOC's suit has not been dismissed as procedurally or jurisdictionally defective. Therefore, the Court does not consider Truvillion to be controlling.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Signal's [26] Motion to Stay or Transfer is GRANTED. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff EEOC's [34] Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 29th day of February, 2012.
s/ Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
12

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ET AL.
VERSUS NO:

CIVIL ACTION 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC

SECTION: "A" (3)

ORDER The Court has considered the parties’ arguments with respect to the issue of consolidation and concludes that the David and EEOC cases will not be consolidated at this time. The Court has already decided that the discrimination claims against Signal will be tried separately in the EEOC case. (Rec. Doc. 78). Thus, the minimal overlap that the David and EEOC cases share is going to be eliminated. Because both the David and EEOC cases will always be pending on the same district judge’s docket, formal consolidation is not necessary to ensure that all common legal questions are tried together, or to minimize the occurrences of having to present evidence more than once. The EEOC case is statutorily entitled to expedited consideration,1 and the Court is convinced that consolidation with the larger and older David matter will only serve to hinder the parties’ efforts to comply with the statutory mandate. Defendants’ arguments so vehemently in favor of consolidation

1
It shall be the duty of the judge designatedpursuant to this subsection to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. If such judge has not scheduled the case for trial within one hundred and twentydays after issue has been joined, that judge may appoint a master pursuant to rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 42 U.S.C. A. § 2000e-5(f)(5) (West 2003 & Supp. 2011).

suggest that they fail to recognize that consolidation does not alter the parties’ substantive rights. Thus, contrary to the position that Signal takes, consolidation has no effect on whether the David decision base applies in the EEOC matter–-the law governing preclusion will determine that regardless of whether the cases are consolidated. Nor is consolidation necessary in order to avoid repetitive and possibly conflicting legal determinations because the David and EEOC cases will always be pending before the same district judge from this point forward. And because the David and EEOC cases are pending before the same district judge and the same magistrate judge, the parties will be compelled to engage in a coordinated discovery process, again regardless of whether or not the cases are consolidated. All parties recognize the need to conduct discovery efficiently.
In short, consolidation solves none of the concerns that Signal raises, and it could only lead to inadvertent delay of both the David and EEOC cases.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Deny Consolidation (Rec. Doc. 64) filed by the EEOC is GRANTED. April 2, 2012
_______________________________ JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff,
SABULAL VIJAYAN, JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY, KURIAN DAVIS,
Intervener Plaintiffs, v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.

) ) ) ) Civil Action No. ) 2:12-cv-0557-SM-DEK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq., and T itle I of t he C ivil R ights Act of 1991 ( “Title V II”), t o correct unl awful employment pr actices o n t he ba sis of na tional or igin, r ace, a nd r etaliation, a nd t o pr ovide appropriate r elief t o S abulal V ijayan ( “Vijayan”), J oseph J acob K adakkarappally (“Kadakkarappally”), and a cl ass of ove r 500 similarly s ituated Indian nationals ( collectively referred to herein as “the Indian Employees”) brought to the United States by Defendant Signal International, LLC (“Signal”) from the country of India to work as employees at Signal facilities in Mississippi and Texas.
Signal’s unlawful practices adversely affected the Indian Employees as a class. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity C ommission (“Commission”), alleges S ignal violated

1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 16
Title V II b y s ubjecting Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, a nd similarly s ituated Indian Employees to: (1) a hos tile w ork e nvironment ba sed on na tional or igin ( Indian), a nd/or r ace ( Asian); a nd (2) disparate, segregated, and discriminatory treatment, concerning the terms and conditions of their employment. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges Signal retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, because t hey oppos ed D efendant’s unl awful c onduct. F inally, t he C ommission c ontends t hat Defendant e ngaged i n a pa ttern or pr actice of di scrimination a gainst t he Indian E mployees because of t heir r ace a nd/or na tional or igin, intending t o d eny t o s aid e mployees t he f ull enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of t his C ourt i s i nvoked pur suant t o 28 U .S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(f)(1) and (f)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. This C ourt ha s pr oper v enue. M ost of t he e mployment pr actices a lleged t o be unlawful w ere c ommitted within the jurisdiction of the U nited States D istrict C ourt f or the Southern District of Mississippi.
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 T itle V II, and i s e xpressly a uthorized t o br ing t his a ction b y §§ 706 (f)(1), 706(f)(3), and 707, of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and § 2000e-6. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal, a Delaware corporation, has been doing business in the City of Pascagoula, State of Mississippi, and Orange, Texas. Signal is engaged in
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 16
the business of building and repairing off-shore oil rigs. 5. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Signal has continuously been an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SUIT 6. M ore t han t hirty da ys pr ior t o t he i nstitution of t his a ction, V ijayan and Kadakkarappally filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Signal. 7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled, towit:
a) Vijayan and Kadakkarappally filed timely charges of discrimination with the Commission;
b) The Commission issued Determinations regarding the allegations made by Vijayan and Kadakkarappally in which the Commission concluded, inter alia, that:
1) Defendant discriminated against Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and the Indian Employees as a class i n t he t erms and c onditions of t heir employment b ecause of their r ace and/or na tional or igin, i n vi olation of Title VII; 2) Defendant s ubjected V ijayan, K adakkarappally a nd t he Indian Employees as a class to a hostile work environment because of their race and/or national origin, in violation of Title VII; and 3) Defendant retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because they opposed conduct which t hey b elieved i n good f aith t o b e unl awful
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 4 of 16
under Title VII; c) The C ommission m ade a good faith e ffort to r esolve th ese f indings through conciliation, conference, and persuasion. Those efforts proved unsuccessful.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. Defendant, in t he a ftermath of H urricane K atrina, was una ble t o o btain a sufficient num ber of qua lified a nd reliable pipe f itters a nd welders to meet the d emands of its work load. 9. Defendant, t o m eet t his need, arranged t o br ing into t he U nited S tates o ver 500 Indian m en t hrough t he f ederal government’s H -2B guestworker p rogram. T hese Indian Employees were hired by Defendant to provide labor and services at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas, locations. 10. The first workers arrived i n t he end of October, 2006. A dditional workers came over in waves of 30 to 50 workers until on or about March, 2007. 11. Defendant brought over more than 500 Indian employees, sending some of these workers to its facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and others to its facility in Orange, Texas. 12. At e ach location the Indian Employees w ere r equired to live in modular trailers called “man camps.” The “m an cam ps” w ere bui lt f or t he ex clusive us e of t he Indian Employees. No other Signal employees were required to live in the “man camps.” 13. Before t he Indian Employees were permitted t o begin work, Defendant required them to sign e mployment a nd hous ing agreements. T hese a greements w ere w ritten i n E nglish, and D efendant di d not give t he Indian w orkers a dequate t ime t o r ead or unde rstand t hese documents.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 5 of 16
14. One of t hese a greements a llowed D efendant t o de duct $35 a da y ( or $10 50 p er month) f rom e ach Indian w orker’s earnings t o r eimburse D efendant f or the c ost of pr oviding food, accommodations, and transportation for each such Indian Employee. Under this agreement Defendant c ould c ontinue t o de duct t his a mount f rom t he w orker’s s alary even i f t he Indian Employee e lected not to e at t he m eals pr ovided b y D efendant and not t o l ive i n t he accommodations provided by Defendant.
15. The “m an cam ps” w ere l ocated on S ignal p roperty in isolated, industrial ar eas miles removed from shopping areas, places of worship, and residential communities. The camps were enclosed by fences and accessible only through a single guarded entrance.
16. Signal a ssigned num bers t o e ach Indian E mployee a nd us ed t hese num bers a s a form of identification and reference rather than using the employee’s name.
17. Signal camp personnel and supervisors used offensive language in speaking with and/or referring to the Indian Employees and insulted the Indian Employees on the basis of their race and/or national origin.
18. Signal guards m onitored t he comings a nd goings of t he Indian E mployees b y requiring t hem t o s how their e mployee i dentification ba dges. S ignal g uards a lso s earched t he packages and bags of Indian Employees when they entered the camps.
19. Except on rare occasions, t he Indian E mployees w ere not pe rmitted t o r eceive visitors in the “man camps.”
20. The “m an camps” w ere composed of a s eries of one r oom t railers conne cted by elevated walkways. Most of the trailers were for sleeping and were referred to as “bunkhouses.” Up to twenty-four men were housed in each bunkhouse, sleeping in two-tiered bunk be ds. T he bunk beds were so tightly packed in the bunkhouses that it was difficult for the workers to move
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 6 of 16
about in the narrow passageways between bunks. 21. The bunkhous es ha d i nsufficient t oileting a nd ba thing f acilities f or t he t wenty-
four men. The Indian Employees were forced to rise early to take their place in line for the few toilets and showers in each trailer.
22. Privacy was non -existent f or t he Indian Employees. T he Indian E mployees experienced extreme di fficulty s leeping du e t o t he cons tant noi se resulting f rom t he close quarters and the comings and goings of workers who worked on different shifts.
22. Signal pe rsonnel c onducted s urprise s earches of t he bunkhous es, i ncluding searching of worker’s personal belongings.
23. The Indian Employees took their meals in mess halls which were part of the “man camps.” The mess halls were only open during limited hours, set by Signal. The food provided by Signal was of poor quality and was frequently bad, stale or molded.
24. As a result of unsanitary conditions, sickness was rampant in the camps, and the Indian Employees sometimes required hospitalization.
25. The “man camps” had rules, enforced by Signal guards. The penalty for breaking rules was $250 for the first violation and $500 for a second violation.
26. When t he I ndian E mployees c omplained a nd a sked t o l ive out side the l abor camps, Defendant Signal told the workers that even if they lived outside the camps, Signal would continue to deduct the $35/day charge from the Indian Employee’s weekly wage. As a result, the Indian E mployees r easonably f elt t hat t hey ha d no c hoice but t o c ontinue t o l ive i n t he S ignal “man camps.”
27. During the first two weeks of employing each Indian Employee, Defendant Signal also de ducted be tween $100 a nd $200 a w eek from e ach e mployee’s p aycheck f or t ool ki ts
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 7 of 16
which the Indian Employees were required to purchase from Defendant Signal. 28. Vijayan a nd K adakkarappally r outinely complained t o S ignal, on be half of
themselves a nd t he ot her Indian E mployees, a bout t he f ood, l iving conditions, c amp f acilities, camp r ules, a nd t erms a nd c onditions of e mployment a t S ignal. V ijayan and K adakkarappally frequently met with fellow Indian Employees to learn of their concerns relating to the conditions under which they were forced to work by Signal.
29. In response to these complaints, Signal personnel warned the Indian Employees to stop complaining. Signal personnel and management regularly threatened the Indian Employees that if they did not continue working for Signal or did not work to Signal’s specifications they would be deported to India.
30. After c omplaining t o S ignal a bout t he hous ing, food, a nd t he ove rall t erms a nd conditions of e mployment, the Indian Employees l iving i n the P ascagoula “m an camp” b egan meeting to discuss how to persuade Defendant to improve the working conditions of the Indian Employees.
31. On or a bout M arch 4, 2007, V ijayan, K adakkarappally, a nd ot her Indian Employees m et w ith a ttorneys i n a c hurch ne ar t he P ascagoula f acility. T he pur pose of t his meeting was to discuss their rights as employees of Signal.
32. Signal l earned of t he a forementioned m eeting h eld on or a bout M arch 4, 2007. The recruiting agent Defendant Signal used in India, Sachin Dewan, called Vijayan’s wife at her home in India and warned her that Vijayan must stop making complaints about Signal or Signal would return the Indian Employees to India. Vijayan’s wife informed Vijayan of this call.
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 8 of 16
33. Vijayan i nformed t he ot her Indian Employees a bout t he call which hi s wife had received a nd w ord s pread qui ckly t hrough t he Pascagoula and O range c amps r egarding t he threats against Vijayan.
34. Vijayan a nd K adakkarappally t ook l eading roles i n gathering i nformation a nd voicing the complaints of the other Indian Employees to Signal.
35. Defendant S ignal c alled a m eeting o f t he Indian E mployees on M arch 8 , 2007. At t his m eeting, i n t he presence of S ignal’s l egal c ounsel, S ignal m anagement t old t he Indian Employees tha t: 1) the y w ere not be ing mis treated; 2) the y w ere c omplaining too much; 3) management w ould onl y r espond t o c omplaints which i t c onsidered w ere l egitimate; 4) S ignal would f ight ba ck a gainst a ny o rganizing e fforts by t he w orkers; a nd 5 ) i f t he workers br ought any legal action against Signal, Signal would not extend the Indian employee’s H-2B visas.
36. The next morning, March 9, 2007, Signal locked the gate to the Pascagoula “man camp”, thereby obs tructing t he s ole m eans of di rect ent ry t o and from t he camp. S ignal c amp coordinator D arrell S nyder a nd approximately five s ecurity guards t hen s wept t hrough t he bunkhouses carrying pictures of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and other Indian Employees.
37. Shortly after 5: 00 a .m. on M arch 9, 2007, S ignal forcibly t ransported Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and three other Indian Employees from their bunkhouse to another trailer used as a TV room. S ignal’s plan was to keep these employees in the room, to discharge them from employment, and t hen t o t ransport t hem to the airport f or imme diate return to India. S ignal’s plan was only altered because Vijayan, en route to the TV room, attempted suicide by cutting his wrists.
38. On March 9, 2007, Signal discharged Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 9 of 16
39. Shortly a fter t he Indian Employees a rrived i n t he U nited S tates, a nd c ontinuing until the employment of all Indian Employees ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and c onditions of e mployment t hat w ere l ess favorable t han e njoyed b y t heir non -Indian counterparts.
40. This unequal t reatment i ncluded but w as not l imited t o Indian Employees being assigned the most undesirable work which non-Indian employees were not asked to perform and other disparate terms and conditions of employment.
COUNT I [Title VII Hostile Work Environment Based on National Origin/Race] 41. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty (40) of this Complaint. 42. Since a t l east O ctober 2006, S ignal ha s e ngaged i n unl awful employment practices at their Pascagoula and Orange locations in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), including subjecting the class of Indian Employees to a hostile work environment based on race and/or national origin. 43. Signal cr eated and perpetuated a hostile w ork environment a gainst t he Indian Employees based on t heir race and/or national origin. Signal’s supervisors and managers made offensive a nd unw anted de rogatory comments a bout t he Indian e mployees a nd e ngaged i n a series of de meaning a nd discriminatory a ctions, specifically di rected solely a t the I ndian Employees based on their race and/or national origin. 44. Signal’s conduct was offensive, severe, unwelcome and pervasive and interfered with t heir w orking c onditions. In a ddition t o t he c onditions pr eviously de scribed i n t his Complaint, S ignal s ubjected t he Indian E mployees t o a hos tile w ork e nvironment, w hich
9

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 10 of 16
included but was not limited to: a) Calling t he Indian E mployees i nsulting a nd of fensive c omments ba sed o n t heir race and/or national origin; b) Calling the Indian Employees “thieves” and “animals”; c) Telling Indian Employees to “shut up” when Indian Employees raised complaints to Signal; d) Telling Indian E mployees t hat t he c onditions i n w hich t hey w ere l iving w ere better than the slums in India; and e) Referring to the Indian E mployees a s "F …ing Keralites", "rat[s]", "chronic whiners", and "back-stabbing whining little bitches". 45. The hos tile environment tha t e xisted at Signal f acilities w as c reated and
perpetuated at t he di rection of S ignal’s m anagement a nd s upervisory personnel w ith di rect supervisory and/or managerial authority over the Indian Employees.
46. The unl awful hos tile e nvironment oc curred w ith t he f ull know ledge o f S ignal’s management a nd s upervisory p ersonnel, a nd Signal f ailed to exercise reasonable ca re ei ther t o prevent t he creation of t his hos tile environment or t o correct promptly t he hos tile environment once it existed.
47. The unl awful e mployment pr actices c omplained of i n t he a forementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty-six (46) were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees.
48. The ef fect of t he i ntentional pr actices complained of i n aforementioned paragraphs s ix ( 6) through f orty-six (46) has be en t o de prive Vijayan, K adakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 11 of 16
COUNT II [Title VII National Origin/Race Discrimination:
Employment Terms & Conditions] 49. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through forty-eight (48) of this Complaint. 50. S ince a t l east O ctober, 2006, D efendant h as e ngaged i n unl awful e mployment practices at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas, facilities in violation of §703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 51. Shortly a fter t he Indian Employees a rrived i n t he United S tates, a nd c ontinuing until the employment of al Indian Employees ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and c onditions of e mployment t hat w ere l ess favorable t han e njoyed b y t heir non -Indian counterparts. 52. This une qual t reatment i ncluded but w as not l imited t o be ing a ssigned t he m ost undesirable w ork w hich non -Indian e mployees w ere not a sked t o pe rform a nd ot her di sparate terms and conditions of employment. 53. The unl awful e mployment pr actices c omplained of i n t he a forementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-two (52) were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees. 54. The ef fect of t he i ntentional pr actices complained of i n aforementioned paragraphs s ix ( 6) through fifty-two (52) has be en t o de prive Vijayan, K adakkarappally, and similarly situated Indian Employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.
11

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 12 of 16
COUNT III [Title VII Retaliation] 55. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through fifty-four (54) of this Complaint. 56. Defendant S ignal e ngaged i n unl awful e mployment pr actices at i ts P ascagoula, Mississippi, facility in violation of §704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 57. Vijayan a nd K adakkarappally, on be half of t hemselves a nd t he ot her Indian Employees, oppos ed S ignal’s t reatment o f t he Indian E mployees, which t hey r easonably believed in good faith to constitute discrimination in violation of Title VII. Signal was aware of this oppos ition on t he part of V ijayan a nd K adakkarappally. As s et forth i n d etail i n t he preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Signal retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because they opposed Signal’s discriminatory treatment of the Indian workers by increasing the severity of the discriminatory terms and conditions of their employment, forcibly detaining them against their will, and discharging them from employment, on March 9, 2007. 58. The unl awful e mployment pr actices c omplained of i n t he a forementioned paragraphs s ix ( 6) through fifty-seven ( 57) were int entional, and done w ith malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. 59. The ef fect of t he i ntentional pr actices complained of i n aforementioned paragraphs s ix (6) through fifty-seven (57) has been t o d eprive Vijayan, and K adakkarappally, individually, of e qual e mployment oppor tunities a nd ot herwise a dversely affect t heir s tatus a s employees because they opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 13 of 16

COUNT IV

[Pattern or Practice Violation]

60. Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts the aforementioned paragraphs six (6) through

fifty-nine (59) of this Complaint.

61. Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting its Indian Employees

to a hostile environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment based on t heir race

and national origin.

62. The unlawful e mployment pr actices c omplained of i n t he a forementioned

paragraphs six (6) through sixty-one (61) were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless

indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and similarly situated

Indian Employees.

63. The ef fect of t he i ntentional pr actices complained of i n aforementioned

paragraphs s ix ( 6) through s ixty-one (61 ) has b een t o d eprive Vijayan, K adakkarappally, and

similarly situated Indian Employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from

engaging i n di scrimination based on race or national origin: (1) i n t he t erms and conditions of

employment and (2) in decisions regarding workplace discipline and termination.

B. Grant a pe rmanent i njunction e njoining D efendant E mployer, i ts o fficers, a gents,

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from

13

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 14 of 16

engaging i n retaliation a nd any ot her employment practice which discriminates on the basis of

race or national origin.

C. Order D efendant S ignal t o i nstitute a nd c arry o ut pol icies, pr actices, a nd pr ograms

which pr ovide e qual e mployment oppor tunities f or Indian E mployees and w hich e radicate t he

effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

D. Order D efendant S ignal t o m ake w hole a ll of t he Indian E mployees wrongfully

discharged or r educed i n pa y b y p roviding a ppropriate ba ckpay w ith pr ejudgment i nterest, i n

amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

its unlawful employment practices.

E.

Order Defendant Signal to make the Indian Employees whole by compensation for

past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in

paragraphs s ix ( 6) t hrough s ixty-four ( 64) a bove, i ncluding r elocation e xpenses, j ob s earch

expenses, and medical expenses not covered by the Signal’s employee benefit plans in amounts

to be determined at trial.

F. Order De fendant S ignal to m ake t he Indian E mployees w hole b y compensation f or

past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described

in pa ragraphs s ix ( 6) t hrough s ixty-four ( 64) above, i ncluding emotional pa in, s uffering,

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Order Defendant S ignal t o pa y t he Indian Employees puni tive d amages f or i ts

malicious and reckless conduct described in six (6) through sixty-four (64) above, in amounts to

be determined at trial.

H. Grant s uch further relief a s t he C ourt de ems necessary a nd p roper i n t he publ ic

interest.

14

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 15 of 16

I.

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.

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of August, 2012.
C. EMANUEL SMITH Regional Attorney Mississippi Bar # 7473
JULIE BEAN Supervisory Trial Attorney DC Bar # 433292
/s/ GERALD L. MILLER Senior Trial Attorney (AL Bar No.: ASB-1454-E52G) 205-212-2047 gerald.miller@eeoc.gov
STEVEN L. MURRAY Senior Trial Attorney (DC Bar No.: 379955) 205-212-2043 steven.murray@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL

15

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 153 Filed 08/08/12 Page 16 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 2, 2012, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will electronically send notification of the filing to all attorneys of record.
DONE this 2nd day of August, 2012. /s/ GERALD L. MILLER Senior Trial Attorney
16

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

SABULAL VIJAYAN, JACOB JOSEPH

)

KADAKKARAPPALLY, KURIAN

)

DAVID, SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA, )

PALANYANDI THANGAMANI,

)

MURUGANANTHAM KANDHASAMY,

)

HEMANT KHUTTAN, PADAVEETTIYIL )

ISSAC ANDREWS, KECHURU

)

DHANANJAYA, KRISHAN KUMAR,

)

KULDEEP SINGH, AND THANASEKAR

)

CHELLAPPAN

)

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-00557
SECTION E JUDGE MORGAN
MAGISTRATE 3 MAG. JUDGE KNOWLES
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

PROPOSED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Preliminary Statement 1. Defendant Signal International, LLC (“Signal”), a major Alabama, Mississippi, and Texasbased rig and ship fabrication and repair company, forced Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Padaveettiyil Issac Andrews, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, and Thanasekar Chellappan (“Plaintiffs-

1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 2 of 21
Intervenors”) and other Indian H-2B workers (collectively, including Plaintiffs-Intervenors, “the Indian Workers”) to live in overcrowded, unsanitary, and guarded “man camps” for which these workers paid dearly. For a 6 foot by 3 foot top or bottom bunk with barely enough headroom to sit up in a room shared with as many as 23 other men, which Signal itself acknowledged was not compliant with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”), and food prepared by an outfit that Signal management said would be shut down if the Health Department ever inspected it, Signal required the Plaintiffs-Intervenors to pay astronomical rent -- $ 1,050 per month. The Plaintiffs-Intervenors, however, also paid with their health, their freedom, and their livelihoods. 2. Among Signal’s many employees at its two production sites, only the Indian Workers were required to pay these exorbitant rent charges and only the Indian Workers lived in the man camps. Signal specifically intended the man camps to be for Indian Workers only; segregated and isolated to such an extent that visitors – be they close relatives, friends, language teachers, clergy, or legal services providers – were not allowed to enter the compound. Indeed, Defendant Signal would not have subjected, and did not subject, its non-Indian workforce to these conditions. 3. Plaintiffs-Intervenors and the other Indian Workers arrived at Signal having paid as much as $20,000 to Signal’s labor recruiters and attorney. To work at Signal, Plaintiffs-Intervenors were required to apply through these specific recruiters and attorney, and therefore they had no choice but to pay these fees. When some workers sought to come to Signal directly without going through these recruiters and this attorney, Signal refused to allow them to do so. For the Indian Workers, fees of this size required selling possessions of value, mortgaging futures, and entering into desperate debt. No non-Indian Signal employees were required to use a specific
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 3 of 21
recruiter, nor did any non-Indian Signal employees arrive at Signal having paid a similarly high amount of money to any recruiter. 4. Signal also subjected the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and others to abusive treatment based on their race and/or national origin. Signal referred to Indian Workers by their Signal employee numbers and not by their names. Signal supervisors and management used derogatory language to demean the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers, including referring to them as “thieves” and “animals”; telling them to “shut up” when they raised complaints to Signal; saying that the man camps were better than the Indian Workers’ homes in India; and referring to Indian Workers as “F…ing Keralite,” “rat[s],” “chronic whiners,” and “back-stabbing whining little bitches.” This race and national origin based treatment created a hostile work environment for the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and the other Indian Workers. 5. Signal assigned Plaintiffs-Intervenors to the most dangerous, difficult, and dirty jobs on the rigs they were repairing, at times without adequate safety procedures in place. PlaintiffsIntervenors believe they were assigned to these posts because of their race and national origin because few non-Indian Workers received such unwanted assignments. 6. Plaintiffs-Intervenors Sabulal Vijayan and Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally complained to Signal management about these unwanted and unhealthful living and working conditions and tried to meet with other workers to coordinate a response. After engaging in these activities, on March 9, 2007, Signal rounded them up in a public display designed to intimidate the other Indian workers, imprisoned Kadakkarappally in a guarded room to await forced deportation, and attempted to so detain Vijayan. Only the attention of the media and the arrival of the local police, along with a gathering of concerned supporters outside Signal’s gates and a suicide attempt by Vijayan, who decided he would rather die than be forced to return to his crippling
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 4 of 21
debt in India, thwarted the deportation. In all, the March 9 incident – which Signal itself has referred to as “Black Friday” – was a flagrant effort to retaliate against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally for complaining about Signal’s illegal, inhumane, and discriminatory treatment. 7. Plaintiffs-Intervenors therefore join the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in this suit to vindicate their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as a case arising under the laws of the United States; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(d), as a case seeking relief under an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), as a case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 9. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). This action also may be appropriately venued in other districts.
The Parties Plaintiff 10. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is a federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII. Plaintiffs-Intervenors 11. Plaintiff-Intervenor Sabulal Vijayan was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Vijayan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007. 12. Vijayan filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on or around April 12, 2007.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 5 of 21
13. On or around September 14, 2009, the EEOC Area Director issued a Determination to Vijayan finding reasonable cause to believe that the Defendant Signal (who was the Respondent to Vijayan’s Charges of Discrimination) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 14. Plaintiff-Intervenor Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Kadakkarappally worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007. 15. Kadakkarappally filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on or around April 12, 2007. 16. On or around September 14, 2009, the EEOC Area Director issued a Determination to Kadakkarappally finding reasonable cause to believe that the Defendant Signal (who was the Respondent to Kadakkarappally’s Charges of Discrimination) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 17. Plaintiff-Intervenor Kurian David was recruited in 2006 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, David worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 18. Plaintiff-Intervenor Sony Vasudevan Sulekha was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Sulekha worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 19. Plaintiff-Intervenor Palanyandi Thangamani was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Thangamani worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 6 of 21
20. Plaintiff-Intervenor Muruganantham Kandhasamy was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Kandhasamy worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 21. Plaintiff-Intervenor Hemant Khuttan was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Khuttan worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 22. Plaintiff-Intervenor Padaveettiyil Issac Andrews was recruited in 2004 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Andrews worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 23. Plaintiff-Intervenor Kechuru Dhananjaya was recruited in 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Dhananjaya worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 24. Plaintiff-Intervenor Krishan Kumar was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Kumar worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007. 25. Plaintiff-Intervenor Kuldeep Singh was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Singh worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007. 26. Plaintiff-Intervenor Thanasekar Chellappan was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Chellappan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 7 of 21
27. At all times relevant to this action, David, Sulekha, Thangamani, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Andrews, Dhananjaya, Kumar, Singh, and Chellappan were similarly situated to PlaintiffsIntervenors Vijayan and Kadakkarappally and to the other Indian Workers. 28. Plaintiffs-Intervenors and the other Indian Workers are of Asian race and are Indian nationals. Defendant 29. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal, a Delaware corporation, has been doing business in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and in Orange, Texas. Signal is engaged in the business of building and repairing ships and off-shore oil rigs. 30. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Signal has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT 31. Defendant Signal, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, was unable to obtain a sufficient number of qualified and reliable pipe fitters and welders to meet the demands of its work load. 32. Defendant Signal, to meet this need, arranged to bring into the United States approximately 500 Indian men (the Indian Workers) through the federal government’s H-2B guestworker program. 33. Defendant Signal entered into contracts with United States-based recruiter Michael Pol d/b/a Global Resources, Inc. (collectively “Pol”); United States-based attorney Malvern C. Burnett d/b/a Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (collectively “Burnett”); and India-based recruiter Sachin Dewan d/b/a Dewan
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 8 of 21
Consultants Pvt. Ltd a/k/a Medtech Consultants (collectively “Dewan”) (Pol, Burnett, and Dewan collectively referred to as “the Recruiters”). 34. When Defendant Signal entered into a contract with the Recruiters in April 2006, the representatives of Signal who executed the contract knew that Signal would not pay any recruitment fee, service charge, transportation expense, visa issuance fee, legal fee, or any other fee, expense, charge or money whatsoever to the Recruiters for any part of the recruitment, processing, arrangement, or transportation of the Indian Workers. 35. At that time, the representatives of Signal who executed the contract knew that the Indian Workers themselves would pay these fees, expenses, and charges to the Recruiters. 36. The Indian Workers in fact each paid up to $20,000 U.S. Dollars to the Recruiters. Specifically, Plaintiff-Intervenor Vijayan paid approximately $12,670, Kadakkarappally paid approximately $13,226, David paid approximately $13,000, Sulekha paid approximately $13,150, Thangamani paid approximately $13,000, Kandhasamy paid approximately $13,000, Khuttan paid approximately $18,785, Andrews paid approximately $11,380, Dhananjaya paid approximately $14,000, Kumar paid approximately $24,950, Singh paid approximately $22,000, and Chellappan paid approximately $22,000 for the opportunity to work at Signal. 37. At all relevant times, Signal would not accept Indian workers who did not use the Recruiters’ services. 38. At all relevant times, the Recruiters acted as Signal’s agents and all actions the Recruiters took during the recruitment process were with Signal’s express or implied authority. 39. No welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, paid recruitment fees in amounts comparable to the amounts the Indian Workers paid.
8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 9 of 21
40. Upon information and belief, no welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, paid recruitment fees that exceeded a few hundred dollars. 41. Upon information and belief, no welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, began their employment in debt as a product of recruitment fees. 42. No welders or fitters directly employed by Signal, other than the Indian Workers, were required to use the Recruiters, nor any particular recruiter, in order to obtain employment at Signal. 43. The Indian Workers were hired by Signal to provide labor and services at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas, locations. 44. The first Indian Workers arrived in the end of October 2006. Additional workers came to the United States in groups of 30 to 50 workers at a time until approximately March 2007. 45. Signal brought over a total of just under 500 Indian Workers to the United States, sending approximately 288 workers to its facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and approximately 200 workers to its facility in Orange, Texas. 46. At each location, the Indian Workers were required to live in modular trailers called “man camps.” Signal built the “man camps” for the exclusive use of the Indian Workers. No other Signal employees were required to live in the “man camps.” 47. Before the Indian Workers were permitted to begin work, Signal required them to sign employment and housing agreements. These agreements were written in English, few of the Indian Workers read or understood English well, and Signal did not give the Indian Workers adequate time to read or understand these documents. 48. One of these agreements allowed Signal to deduct $35 a day (or approximately $1050 per month) from each Indian Worker’s earnings to reimburse Signal for the cost of providing food,
9

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 10 of 21
accommodations, and transportation for each such Indian Worker. Under this agreement Signal could continue to deduct this amount from the worker’s salary even if the Indian Worker elected not to eat the meals provided by Signal and not to live in the accommodations provided by Signal. These deductions also applied to days when for which the Indian Workers were not paid, such as holidays, sick days, weekends, and days with inclement weather where workers were unable to work. 49. The “man camps” were located on Signal property in isolated, industrial areas miles removed from shopping areas, places of worship, and residential communities. The camps were enclosed by fences and accessible only through a single guarded entrance. 50. Signal assigned numbers to each Indian Worker and used these numbers as a form of identification and reference rather than using the employee’s name. 51. Signal camp personnel and supervisors used offensive language in speaking with and/or referring to the Indian Workers and insulted the Indian Workers on the basis of their race and/or national origin. 52. Signal guards monitored the comings and goings of the Indian Workers by requiring them to show their employee identification badges. Signal guards also searched the packages and bags of Indian Workers when they entered the camps. 53. Except on rare occasions, the Indian Workers were not permitted to receive visitors in the “man camps.” 54. The “man camps” were composed of a series of one room trailers connected by elevated walkways. Most of the trailers were for sleeping and were referred to as “bunkhouses.” Up to twenty-four men were housed in each bunkhouse, sleeping in two-tiered bunk beds. The bunk beds were so tightly packed in the bunkhouses that it was difficult for the Indian Workers to
10

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 11 of 21
move about in the narrow passageways between bunks. Signal recognized that the bunkhouses were not compliant with the requirements of OSHA and decided against making them OSHA compliant by having fewer Indian Workers in each bunkhouse because doing so would be too “onerous” for Signal. 55. The bunkhouses had insufficient toileting and bathing facilities for the twenty-four men. The Indian Workers were forced to rise early to take their place in line for the few toilets and showers in each trailer. 56. Privacy was non-existent for the Indian Workers. The Indian Workers experienced extreme difficulty sleeping due to the constant noise resulting from the close quarters and the comings and goings of workers who worked on different shifts but were housed closely together in the same bunkhouses. Signal also had control over when the lights were turned on and when the lights were turned off in the bunkhouses as even that decision was not left up to the Indian Workers. 57. Signal personnel conducted surprise searches of the bunkhouses, including searches of the Indian Workers’ personal belongings. 58. The Indian Workers took their meals in mess halls which were part of the “man camps.” The mess halls were only open during limited hours, set by Signal. The food provided by Signal was of poor quality and was frequently bad, stale or molded. 59. As a result of unsanitary conditions, sickness was rampant in the camps, and the Indian Workers sometimes required hospitalization. 60. The “man camps” had rules, enforced by Signal guards. The penalty for breaking rules was $250 for the first violation and $500 for a second violation.
11

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 12 of 21
61. When the Indian Workers complained and asked to live outside the labor camps, Signal told the workers that even if they lived outside the camps, Signal would continue to deduct the $35/day charge from the Indian Workers’ weekly wages. As a result, the Indian Workers reasonably felt that they had no choice but to continue to live in the Signal “man camps.” No non-Indian Signal employees who lived outside the camps had such deductions taken from their wages. 62. During the first two weeks of employing each Indian Worker, Signal also deducted between $100 and $200 a week from each employee’s paycheck for tool kits which the Indian Workers were required to purchase from Signal. On information and belief, Signal did not require non-Indian workers to buy tools from Signal. 63. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally routinely complained to Signal, on behalf of themselves and the other Indian Workers, about the food, living conditions, camp facilities, camp rules, and terms and conditions of employment at Signal. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally frequently met with fellow Indian Workers to learn of their concerns relating to the conditions under which they were forced to work by Signal. 64. In response to these complaints, Signal personnel warned the Indian Workers to stop complaining. Signal personnel and management regularly threatened the Indian Workers that if they did not continue working for Signal or did not work to Signal’s specifications, they would be deported to India. 65. After Signal ignored the Indian Workers’ complaints regarding housing, food, and terms and conditions of employment, the Indian Workers living in the Pascagoula “man camp” continued meeting to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve the working conditions of the Indian Workers.
12

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 13 of 21
66. On or about March 4, 2007, Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and other Indian workers met with attorneys in a church near the Pascagoula facility. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss their rights as employees of Signal. 67. Signal learned of the aforementioned meeting held on or about March 4, 2007. The recruiting agent Signal used in India, Sachin Dewan, called Vijayan’s wife at her home in India and warned her that Vijayan must stop making complaints about Signal or Signal would return the Indian Workers to India. Vijayan’s wife informed Vijayan of this call. 68. Vijayan informed the other Indian Workers about the call which his wife had received and word spread quickly through the Pascagoula and Orange camps regarding the threats against Vijayan. 69. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally took leading roles in gathering information and voicing the complaints of the other Indian Workers to Signal. 70. Signal called a meeting of the Indian Workers on or about March 8, 2007. At this meeting, Signal management told the Indian Workers that Signal would fight back against any organizing efforts by the workers and that if Indian Workers brought any legal action against Signal, Signal would not extend any of the Indian Workers’ H-2B visas, despite Signal’s previous promises of extensions. 71. The next morning, March 9, 2007, Signal locked the gate to the Pascagoula “man camp”, thereby obstructing the sole means of direct entry to and exit from the camp. Signal camp coordinator Darrell Snyder and approximately five security guards then swept through the bunkhouses carrying pictures of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and other Indian Workers. 72. Shortly after 5:00 a.m. on March 9, 2007, Signal forcibly transported Vijayan, Kadakkarappally and three other Indian Workers from their bunkhouse to another trailer used as
13

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 14 of 21
a TV room. Signal’s plan was to keep these employees in the room, to discharge them from employment, and then to transport them to the airport for immediate return to India. Signal’s plan was altered with regard to Vijayan because he attempted suicide by cutting his wrist. The other workers were placed in the TV room and kept there by guards who had instructions from Signal not to let the workers leave the room. 73. On March 9, 2007, Signal discharged Vijayan and Kadakkarappally because of their complaints, organizing efforts, and discussions of discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. 74. Starting with the mandatory use of the Recruiters and continuing until the employment of all Indian Workers ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than those enjoyed by their non-Indian counterparts. 75. This unequal treatment included, but was not limited to, Indian Workers being assigned the most undesirable work at the facilities which non-Indian Workers were not asked to perform, harassment and insults based on the workers’ race and national origin, mandatory subjection to inferior living conditions in the man camps where no non-Indian workers were required to live, mandatory rent and meal deductions, mandatory use of the Recruiters who required payment of high recruitment fees, and other disparate terms and conditions of employment.
COUNT I [Title VII Hostile Work Environment Based on National Origin/Race]
[Claim by All Plaintiffs-Intervenors] 76. Plaintiffs-Intervenors incorporate and reassert the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 75 of this Complaint in Intervention.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 15 of 21
77. Since at least October 2006, Signal has engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Pascagoula and Orange locations in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a), including subjecting the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers to a hostile work environment based on race and/or national origin. 78. Signal created and perpetuated a hostile work environment against the PlaintiffsIntervenors and other Indian Workers based on their race and/or national origin. Signal’s supervisors and managers made offensive and unwanted derogatory comments about the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers and engaged in a series of demeaning and discriminatory actions, specifically directed solely at the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers based on their race and/or national origin. 79. Signal’s conduct was offensive, severe, unwelcome and pervasive and interfered with the Indian Workers’ working conditions. Signal subjected the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers to a hostile work environment, which included but was not limited to:
a. Calling the Indian Workers insulting and offensive comments based on their race and/or national origin;
b. Calling the Indian Workers “thieves” and “animals”; c. Telling Indian Workers to “shut up” when Indian Workers raised complaints to
Signal; d. Telling Indian Workers that the conditions in the man camps were better than the
workers’ homes in India; and e. Referring to the Indian Workers as “F…ing Keralite”, “rat[s]”, “chronic whiners”,
and “back-stabbing whining little bitches”.
15

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 16 of 21
80. The hostile environment that existed at Signal facilities was created and perpetuated at the direction of Signal’s management and supervisory personnel with direct supervisory and/or managerial authority over the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and other Indian Workers. 81. The unlawful hostile environment occurred with the full knowledge of Signal’s management and supervisory personnel, and Signal failed to exercise reasonable care either to prevent the creation of this hostile environment or to correct promptly the hostile environment once it existed. 82. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 81 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors. 83. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 82 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs-Intervenors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin. This unlawful conduct also resulted in emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to the Plaintiffs-Intervenors.
COUNT II [Title VII National Origin/Race Discrimination:
Employment Terms & Conditions] [Claim by All Plaintiffs-Intervenors] 84. Plaintiffs-Intervenors incorporate and reassert the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 83 of this Complaint. 85. Starting with the mandatory use of the Recruiters by the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and all other Indian Workers, and continuing until the employment of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors and all
16

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 17 of 21
other Indian Workers ceased, Signal subjected such employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorable than enjoyed by their non-Indian counterparts. These employment practices violated § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 86. This unequal treatment included but was not limited to
a. Effectively requiring the Indian Workers, but no non-Indian employees, to live in segregated, overcrowded, guarded, and unsafe man camps by charging mandatory room and board fees of 35 dollars per day (or otherwise charging these fees only to the Indian Workers and not Signal’s non-Indian employees who lived off-site);
b. assigning the Indian Workers the most undesirable work at the facilities, which non-Indian Workers were not asked to perform;
c. requiring the Indian workers to obtain employment at Signal through two labor recruiters and an attorney who charged exorbitant fees up to $20,000, but not requiring non-Indian workers to use any particular recruiter or to pay such recruitment fees; and
d. other disparate terms and conditions of employment. 87. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 86 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors. 88. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 87 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs-Intervenors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race and/or national origin. This unlawful conduct also resulted in emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to the Plaintiffs-Intervenors.
17

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 18 of 21
COUNT III [Title VII Retaliation] [Individual Claim for Plaintiffs-Intervenors Vijayan and Kadakkarappally]
89. Plaintiffs-Intervenors incorporate and reassert the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 88 of this Complaint in Intervention. 90. Defendant Signal engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility in violation of § 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 91. Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, on behalf of themselves and the other Indian Workers, opposed Signal’s discriminatory treatment of the Indian Workers. Signal was aware of this opposition on the part of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. As set forth in detail in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention, Signal retaliated against Vijayan and Kadakkarappally by increasing the severity of the discriminatory terms and conditions of their employment, and, on March 9, 2007, forcibly detaining them against their will and discharging them from employment because they opposed Signal’s discriminatory treatment of the Indian Workers. 92. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 91 were intentional, and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally. 93. The effect of the intentional practices complained of in aforementioned paragraphs 10 through 92 has been to deprive Vijayan, and Kadakkarappally, individually, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because they
18

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 19 of 21
opposed practices made unlawful by Title VII. This unlawful conduct resulted in emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: A. Grant the injunctive and prospective relief set forth in the First Amended Complaint of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Rec. Doc. 153, Prayer for Relief at ¶¶ A – C); B. Order Signal to make the Plaintiffs-Intervenors whole by compensating them for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 1 through 93 above, including recruitment fees, relocation expenses, medical expenses, and room and board charges; C. Order Signal to make Plaintiffs-Intervenors whole by compensating them for nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 1 through 93 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial; D. Order Signal to make Plaintiffs-Intervenors Vijayan and Kadakkarappally whole by compensating them for non-pecuniary losses resulting from the retaliation set forth in Count III, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Signal to pay the Plaintiffs-Intervenors punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described herein; F. Award Plaintiffs-Intervenors the costs in this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of October, 2012,
19

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 20 of 21

/s/ Meredith Stewart Meredith Stewart Louisiana Bar No. 34109 Eden Heilman Louisiana Bar No. 30551 eden.heilman@splcenter.org Sheila A. Bedi Mississippi Bar No. 101652 Sheila.bedi@splcenter.org Shakti Belway Mississippi Bar No. 102095 Shakti.belway@splcenter.org Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947
/s/ Thomas P. Fritzsche Thomas P. Fritzsche (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 940482 Tom.Fritzsche@splcenter.org Daniel Werner (pro hac vice) (Lead Counsel) Georgia Bar No. 3969839 Daniel.werner@splcenter.org Naomi Tsu (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 507612 Naomi.tsu@splcenter.org Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857

Alan B. Howard (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 2136661 ahoward@crowell.com Hugh Sandler (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4712584 hsandler@crowell.com Crowell & Moring LLP 590 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 803-4021
Joseph Bjarnson (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4774055 jbjarnson@swcblaw.com Sahn Ward Coschignano and Baker, PLLC 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 601 Uniondale, New York 11553 Telephone: (516) 228-1300 Facsimile: (516) 228-0038
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4136966 cbhatnagar@aclu.org Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street – 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7840
Ivy Suriyopas (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4406385 isuriyopas@aaldef.org Asian American Legal Defense
and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10013 Telephone: (212) 966-5932

20

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 179 Filed 11/07/12 Page 21 of 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 15th day of October, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to counsel of record for all parties in this case. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas P. Fritzsche Thomas P. Fritzsche Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors
21

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: EEOC v. Signal International (Civil Action No. 12-557)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are two motions filed in theEEOC v. Signal International, LLC et

al matter (Civil Action No. 12-557; “EEOC”): (1) plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission’s (“EEOC”) “Motion to Strike or Alternative ly to Dismiss Defendant’s

Affirmative Answers,”1 and (2) plaintiff-intervenors Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, and David’s

“Motion to Strike, or Alternatively, to Dismiss, Defendant Signal’s Affirmative Defenses.”2

Defendant Signal International, LLC (“Signal”)filed an opposition to both Motions in one

1 R. Doc. 103. 2 R. Doc. 110.
1

document.3 EEOC seeks an Order from this Court striking all 17 affirmative defenses contained
in Signal’s “Answer and Affirmative Defenses”4 to the EEOC’s complaint.5 Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court striking all 19 of the affirmative defenses containe d in Signal’s “Answer and Affirmative Defenses” 6 to the plaintiff-intervenors’ class complaint in intervention. Both EEOC and plaintiff-intervenors argue that Signal’s affirmative defenses are legally invalid, that they are legally insufficient under the pleading standard set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that they do no respond to a single cause of action, that they deprive EEOC and the pal intiff-intervenors of fair notice to the defenses claimed, that they are either conclusoryor merely a denial of the pledaings, and thus insufficient and redundant, and that they shouldbe stricken from the record. In response, Signal argues its affirmative an swers satisfy the pleading stan dard set forth by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(b) and 8(c), and are thus suffici ent for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), because the amount of detail required for a sufficiently pled affirmative defense is lower than the amount of detail that must be included in a complaint.
The Court agrees with EEOC and plainti ff-intervenors that certain affirmative defenses asserted by Signal must be stricken, but notes that Signal should be given an
3 R. Doc. 112. 4 R. Doc. 91. 5 In its motion to strike, EEOC also requests that Signal’s “Twenty-Second through Twenty-Fifth” defenses and Signal’s “Twenty-Seventh through Fortieth-Third [sic]” defenses. See R. Doc. 103 at p. 1. Signal asserts only 17 affirmative defenses, all of which EEOC seeks to strike. If EEOC seeks to strike anything else from Signal’s answer, EEOC failed to provide justification for such an order. To the extent EEOC’s motion to strike requests an order striking anything beyond Signal’s affirmative defenses, the motion is denied. 6 R. Doc. 90.
2

opportunity to amend its affirmative defenses and re-urge them in a timely fashion. “The
court may strike from a plead ing an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). An affirmative defense is “subject
to the same pleading requirement as i s the complaint,” and a defendant “must plead an
affirmative defense with enough specificity or factual particularity to give the plaintiff ‘fair
notice’ of the defense that is being advanced.” Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354, 362
(5th Cir.1999). Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 8 provides the requirements that all
pleadings must satisfy, and subsecti ons (b) and (c) of the Rule govern the pleading
requirements for defenses and affirmative defenses, respectively. Under Rule 8(b) and (c),
a defendant must “state in short and plain terms its defenses to eachclaim asserted against
it” and must “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(1)(A) and (c)(1).7
A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) “is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when
required for the purposes of justice.” Augustus v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Escambia
Country, 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (quotingBrown v. Williamson Tobacco Corp.
v. United States, 201 F.2d 819,822 (6th Cir. 195 3)); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.
Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc,. 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (5thCir. 1982). “[E]ven when
technically appropriate and well-found ed,” motions to strike are not be granted “in the
7 Signal, EEOC, and the plaintiff-intervenors all argue for varying degrees of application of the well-known Twombly-Iqbal pleading standard to Signal’s affirmative defenses. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Signal argues that this standard, which the Court uses when analyzing the sufficiency of a complaint, does not apply to affirmative defenses. EEOC and the plaintiff-intervenors argue that Twombly-Iqbal does apply to affirmative defenses, and that Signal’s affirmative defenses do not meet the facial plausibility standard created by those two cases. The Court need not resolve this dispute, however, as the “fair notice” standard set forth by Rule 8 and the Fifth Circuit in Woodfield is a lower threshold than Twombly-Iqbal, and Signal’s affirmative answers do not meet even that lowered standard.
3

absence of a showing of prejudice to the moving party.A”bene v. Jaybar, LLC, 802 F. Supp. 716, 723 (E.D. La. 2011) (quoting 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1381 (3d ed. 2004)). The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Tarver v. Foret, No. 95-1192, 1996 WL 3536, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 1996).
Signal’s affirmative answer s are, for the most part, as EEOC and the plaintiffintervenors both characterize them, “shotgun” pleadings, devoid of the kind of factual specificity EEOC and the plaintiff-intervenors would need to have fair notice of the defesnes Signal is asserting, and to which particular causes of action Signal is claiming each particular defense is meant to apply. See Woodfield, 193 F.3d at 362. B ecause Signal’s affirmative defenses are vague and conclusory, EEOC and the plaintiff-intervenors would be prejudiced if they were required to litigate every possible application of each and every defense. However, this is an issue that can be remedied if Signal better defines the defenses it is asserting to at least comply with the fair notice requirement of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By adding more detail to each of its affirmative defenses and explicitly stating which defenses apply to whichcauses of action, Signal will be able to assert all of the affirmative defenses it sees fit, tehEEOC and the plaintiff-intervenors will be given fair notice of those defenses and be able toprepare to litigate those issues, and this matter can continue to move forward.
Accordingly, IT IS ORD ERED that Motions to Strike be and hereby are GRANTED IN PART, as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the following affirmative defenses contained in Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to EEOC’s complaint be and hereby are
4

STRICKEN, as they are impermissibly vague: 8 and 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the following affirmative defenses contained in
Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to EEOC’s complaint be and hereby are STRICKEN, as they are merely conclusory denials ofEEOC’s pleadings: 1, 4, 5, 9, and 1217.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the following affirmative defenses contained in Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to EEOC’s complaint be and hereby are STRICKEN, as they are not directed at any partic ular cause of action, and thus deprive EEOC o f fa ir notice of the defense claimed and which cause of action that defense is supposed to apply to: 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the following affirmative defenses contained in Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to plaintiff-intervenors’ class complaint in intervention be and hereby are STRICKEN, as they are impermissibly vague: 8 and 11.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the following affirmative defenses contained in Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to plaintiff-intervenors’ class complaint in intervention be and hereby are STRICKEN, as they are merely conclusory denials of plaintiff-intervenors’ pleadings, and thus redundant: 1, 4, 5, 9, and 12-19. Paragraph 117A of Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses is also stri cken, as it is redundant and confusing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the following affirmative defenses contained in Signal’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to plaintiff-intervenors’ class complaint in intervention be and hereby areSTRICKEN, as they are not directed at any particular cause of action, and thus deprive plaintiff-intervenors of fair notice of the defense claimed and
5

which cause of action that defense is supposed to apply to: 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat Signal shall re-urge its answers and affirmative
defenses within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, amending both pleadings to correct the issues described above.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _2_0_th_ day of May, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International (Civil Action No. 12-557) (“EEOC”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff Equal Empolyment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”)

“Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation.1” Plaintiff-intervenors support theEEOC’s

motion.2 Defendant Signal International, LLC(“Signal”) opposes the EEOC’s motion3. For

the reasons set forth below, the EEOC’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

One of the EEOC’s specific prayers for relief in its motion is for an order directing

1 R. Doc. 192. 2 R. Doc. 193. 3 R. Doc. 195.
1

Signal to file an answer to the EEOC’s amended complaint within ten days.4 In response, Signal explains that it will file its answer “on or before June 3, 2013.”5 Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order directing Signal to answer the EEOC’s amended complaint within a certain time frame, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t Signal shall filed an answer to the EEOC’s amended complaint on or before June 3, 2013.
The Court now turns to the EEOC’s genera l prayer that the Court “i mmediately release [the EEOC matter] from any affiliation with David [v. Signal International, LLC, Civil Action No. 08-1220], and allow [the EEOC] to proceed with Phase I discovery and litigation,” and the following specific prayers:(1) that the Court order Signal to produce the identity of the persons and entities identified in interrogatories propounded on Signal by the EEOC;6 (2) that the Court authorize the EEOC’isssuance of Third-Party Subpoenas; (3) that the Court order the parties to participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference and file a Joint Case Management Order, and to exchange Initial Disclosures no later than 14 days after the Rule 26(f) Conference; and (4) that the Court order that the parties file a Joint Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information.
Judge Zainey denied Signal’s motion to consolidate the EEOC case and the David case while this case was pending before Section “A” of this Court. 7 As a result, while the
4 See R. Doc. 153. 5 R. Doc. 195 at p. 2. 6 See R. Doc. 192-3. 7 R. Doc. 93.
2

cases are clearly related, they are not formally consolidated. It is not clear that the EEOC is referring to when it references “affiliation” of this case with the David case. Affiliation is not a term in the Federal Rules, and there is no order in the record affiliating the two cases. Instead, they are “related cases,” and that is how they are designated in the caption. Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion eseks an order “releasing its lawsuit from any affiliation with David,” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court agrees with the EEOC, however, that the EEOC should b e a llowed to proceed with discovery in its case against Signailn an effort to movethe case towards a final resolution. Despite Signal’s arguments to th e contrary, there is no valid reason why the EEOC case should not move forward, and, to accomplish this goal, Signal must engage in meaningful discovery with the EEOC and plaintiff-intervenors.
Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order allowing the EEOC to proceed with discovery, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks (1) an order directing Signal to produce to the EEO C, no later than fifteen (15) days after the entry of this Order, the identity of the persons and entities identifiedin the interrogatories propounded on Signal by the EEOC; (2) an order authorizing EEO C's issuance of Third-Party Subpoenas, effective immediately; (3) an order directing the parties to participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference no later than twenty (20) days after the entry of this Order and to exchange Initial Disclosures no later thanfourteen (14) days after the Rule 26(f) Conference; and (4) an order directing the parties to file a Joint Protective Order, or separate proposals if
3

no agreement can be reached, governing the handling of confidential information no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EEOC’s motion be and hereby is GRANTED.
Finally, the EEOC’s request for an order rqeuiring the parties to develop and submit a joint case ma nagement order is contingent in part upon the Court’s resolution of the EEOC’s pending motion to bifurcate the trial of this matter8. Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order requiring the parties to file a joint case management order, the EEOC’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will deal with the case management order issue in the context of the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _3_rd_ day of June, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
8 See R. Doc. 141.
4

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 202 Filed 06/11/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Kurian David et al v. Signal International, LLC et al (Civil Action No. 08-1220) (“David”)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is defendant Signal International, LLC’s (“Signal”) motion to sever.1

Plaintiffs oppose Signal’s motion.2 Signal has filed a reply in further support of its motion.3

For the reasons set forth below, Signal’s motion to sever is denied.

BACKGROUND

On January 4, 2012, while this case was pending in Section “A” of this Court, Judge

Zainey denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify this case as a class action under Rule 23 of the

1 R. Doc. 1196. 2 R. Doc. 1203. 3 R. Doc. 1207.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 202 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 5
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Signal now moves for severance of the twelve named
plaintiffs’ claims under Rules 20, as it claims the plaintiffs are misjoined under Rule 21.
However, as Signal recognizes in its motion to sever, after denying class certification, Judge
Zainey determined that this matter will continue to move forward with all twelve plaintiffs, beginning with a trial involving five of the twelve named plaintiffs.5 This Court adopted Judge Zainey’s plan at a June 15, 2012 status conference.6
ANALYSIS
There are three interrelated rules of civil procedure at play in Signal’s motion. Rule
20 provides, in pertinent part, that:
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). Rule 21 provides that “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for
dismissing an action,” but that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on
4 R. Doc. 1117. 5 See Civil Action No. 12-557, R. Doc. 78. Judge Zainey issued this Order, which is dated March 16, 2012, after reviewing proposed case management orders submitted by the parties in this case and in Civil Action No. 12-557. See Civil Action No. 08-1220, R. Doc. 1147 (order instructing parties to file proposed case management orders after denial of class certification). It is not clear why this Order was not docketed in both cases, as it clearly applies to both. In addition, while a formal motion to sever was not in front of Judge Zainey at the time he issued the March 16, 2012 Order, Signal had raised the issue of severance in its proposed case management order, so Judge Zainey engaged in a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of severance of the plaintiffs’ claims and determined that proceeding with five named plaintiffs was the best solution, unless the parties could agree otherwise. The parties never agreed on a different solution, so Judge Zainey’s plan stands. 6 R. Doc. 1178.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 202 Filed 06/11/13 Page 3 of 5
just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 21. Rule 42(b) provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b).
Signal is correct in stating that, after class certification is denied, the district court is required to evaluate the case to determine if the named plaintiffs’ claims are properly joined under Rule 20. See, e.g., Acevedo v. Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 521 (5th Cir. 2010). The decision whether to allow permissive joinder under Rule 20 or to order severance of misjoined plaintiffs under Rules 21 and 42(b) is left to the discretion of the trial court. See Williams v. Hoyt, 556 F.2d 1336, 1341 (5th Cir. 1977) (the district court has “broad discretion” in determining the propriety of permissive joinder of parties under Rule 20); see also Applewhite v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 67 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 1995). In Applewhite, the Fifth Circuit explained the interplay of Rules 20, 21, and 42, in the context of a case in which class certification was denied, leaving a number of named plaintiffs asserting similar claims against one defendant:
Generally, permissive joinder of plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is at the option of the plaintiffs, assuming they meet the requirements set forth in Rule 20. Under Rules 20 and 21, the district court has the discretion to sever an action if it is misjoined or might otherwise cause delay or prejudice. Further, the district court also has discretion to sever claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), in furtherance of convenience or economy, or to prevent prejudice. This discretion, however, should be exercised after an examination of the individual case. Id. (internal citations omitted). As evidenced by this passage, the Court’s discretion in managing a case after the denial of class certification is very broad.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 202 Filed 06/11/13 Page 4 of 5
Despite Signal’s protestations to the contrary, Judge Zainey’s finding that plaintiffs’
claims are unsuitable for class certification under Rule 23 is not tantamount to a finding
that only severance of all claims will afford the parties a fair and just trial of plaintiffs’ claims against Signal. As the district court in Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chems. Corp., 245
F.R.D. 539 (S.D. Ala. 2007) explained, in another case involving a severance issue after the
denial of class certification:
The Rule 20 inquiry is distinct from that under Rule 23, and a ruling against the plaintiffs on the latter in no way suggests (much less mandates) a like outcome with respect to the former. Stated differently, there is no predomination prerequisite for joinder of multiple plaintiffs' claims, and Rule 20 contemplates a much lower threshold for allowing plaintiffs' claims to proceed to trial together than is required by Rule 23 for class certification. The touchstone of the Rule 20 joinder/severance analysis is whether the interests of efficiency and judicial economy would be advanced by allowing the claims to travel together, and whether any party would be prejudiced if they did. Id. at 542. Again, Rule 20 creates a two-prong test, “allowing joinder of plaintiffs when (1)
their claims arise out of the ‘same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences’ and when (2) there is at least one common question of law or fact linking all claims.” Acevedo, 600 F.3d at 521 (citations omitted). Signal’s severance argument takes
far too strict an approach to this liberal two-prong test, which the Court finds is clearly met
in this case. The first prong is met because plaintiffs’ claims all arise out of the same
allegedly discriminatory practices and policies, and all the plaintiffs claim to have suffered
damage as a result of similar, if not identical, alleged misrepresentations and fraudulent
schemes orchestrated by Signal. In addition, plaintiffs’ claims share several common
questions of both law and fact, and thus the second prong of the Rule 20 test - which
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 202 Filed 06/11/13 Page 5 of 5
requires only one such common question - is easily met. Acevedo, 600 F.3d at 521. Not only is the Rule 20 test met in this case, such that permissive joinder of
plaintiffs under Rule 20 is appropriate, the Court also finds that severance under Rule 21 or 42(b) is likely to have the opposite effect from what Signal claims to seek, causing the individual plaintiffs’ cases against Signal to become hopelessly mired in inefficiency, redundance, and delay. The Court further finds that severance would surely result in prejudice to the plaintiffs, while the risk of prejudice to Signal if severance is denied is minimal.
Signal’s motion to sever, which is essentially a motion to reconsider Judge Zainey's and the Court's decision regarding severance in this case, fails to provide any compelling reason for the Court to revisit the issue. Both Judge Zainey and this Court have already evaluated this case and determined that it will proceed under one case number with twelve named plaintiffs, and that the first trial in this matter will have five named plaintiffs; three chosen by plaintiffs and two chosen by defendants. The Court, in its discretion, denies Signal’s motion to sever.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Signal’s motion to sever be and hereby is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1_1_t_h day of June, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
5

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Kurian David et al v. Signal International, LLC et al (Civil Action No. 08-1220) (“David”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the David Plaintiffs’ motion to “reconsider in limited part”1 the

Court’s order of June 11, 20132 in which the Court denied defendant Signal International,

LLC’s (“Signal”) motion to sever. 3 For the reasons set forth below, the David Plaintiffs’

motion to reconsider is denied.

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2012, while the above-captioned cases were pending in Section “A” of

1 R. Doc. 1355. 2 R. Doc. 1349. 3 R. Doc. 1196.
1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 7
this Court, Judge Zainey considered competingcase management proposals after denying the David Plaintiffs’ motion to certifyDavid as a Rule 23 class action. TheDavid Plaintiffs proposed that all twelve named plaintiffs be tried together, while Signal, along with other David defendants, proposed that each plaintiff’s case be tried individually. Judge Zainey determined that the initialDavid trial will involve five of thetwelve named plaintiffs, with three of those plaintiffs picked by theDavid Plaintiffs and two picked by Signal.See David v. Signal Intern., LLC, No. 08-1220, 2013 WL 2631427, at *1& n. 5 (E.D. La. June 11, 2013). After the cases were transferred, this Courtadopted Judge Zainey’s case management plan on June 15, 2012. Id. Signal then moved to sever theDavid Plaintiffs’ cases, again asking that each of theDavid Plaintiffs have a separate trial.Id. The Court denied Signal’s motion to sever, noting that it was essentially a motion to reconsider Judge Zainey’s prior ruling and that “[b]oth Judge Zainey and this Co urt ha ve a lready evaluated this case and determined that it will proceed under one case number with twelve named plaintiffs, and that the first trial in this matter will have five named plaintiffs; three chosen by plaintiffs and two chosen by defendants.” Id. at *3.
Fresh on the heels of the Coutr’s denial of Signal’s request for reconsideration (under the guise of a motion to sever), the David Plaintiffs are now seeking reconsideration of Judge Zainey’s case management plan. The David Plaintiffs ask the Co urt to reconsider Judge Zainey’s March 16, 2012 decision to allow Signal to pick two of the plaintiffs for the first David trial and this Court’s adoption of that plan in June 2012 and reaffirmation of that plan in June 2013. The David Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration of that decision is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. In response, 4 Signal argues that the David
4 See R. Doc. 1358.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 7
Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider is untimely and that allowing Signal to pick two of the plaintiffs in the first David trial will not result in manifest injustice.
STANDARD OF LAW A timely filed motion to reconsider an interlocutory order is evaluated under the same standard as a motion to alter or amen d a final judgment brought pursua nt to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce dure. See, e.g. Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 142 4398, at * 3–4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (“The general practice of thi s court has been to evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). A motion to reconsider filed outside thi s 28-day window is evaluated under the standards governing a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b). Stangel v. United States, 68 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[a]lthough motions for reconsideration or rehearing are typi cally tr eated as F ED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motions, motions for reconsideration or rehear ing served more than [28] days after the judgment are generally decided under Rule 60(b)”);see also Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2 012) (depending on the time of filing, a motion to reconsider “is evaluated either asa motion to ‘alter or amend a judgment’ under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for ‘relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding’ under Rule60(b)”). A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the corre ctness of a judgment. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered e vidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 4 of 7
could, and should, have been made before th e judgment issued.” Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted). In deciding motions under Rule 59(e), the Court considers the following:
(1) whether t he m ovant d emonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) whether the movant presents new evidence; (3) whether the motion is necessary in ord er t o prevent
manifest injustice; and (4) whether the motion is justified by an interveningchange
in the controlling law. Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction.” SPE FO Holdings, LLC v. Retif Oil & Fuel, LLC, No. 07–3779, 2008 WL 3285907, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2008). “A district court has considerable discretion to grant or deny a motoin for new trial under Rule 59.”Kelly v. Bayou Fleet, Inc,. No. 06–6871, 2007 WL 3275200, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2007).
A Rule 60(b) motion also calls into question the correctness of a judgment. Under Rule 60(b), the Court may “reileve a party from a final judgment” for one of six enumerated reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered eviden ce that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been di scovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing paryt;
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 5 of 7
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisifed, released ordischarged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no l onger equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). The district court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether any of these reasons are present in a given caseT. eal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991). All Rule 60(b) motions must be brought within a “reasonable time ” a fter judgment, and motions brought pursuant Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) must be brought within one year of the judgment or order. F ED. R. CIV. P. 60(c); see also Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 305 (5th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS The David P laintiffs’ motion to reconsider, while purporting to seek timely reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Court’s June 11, 2013 order regarding Signal’s motion to sever, appears in actuality to seek reconsideration of a decision made by Judge Zainey in March 2012, which motion would properly be governed by Rule 60(b). Indeed, several of the arguments raised in the instant motion to reconsider were rai sed by the David Plaintiffs in their proposed case management submission to Judge Zainey last year. The Court need not dwell on this timing issue, however, because theDavid Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that reconsideration of Judge Zainey’s case management plan is appropriate under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Case management decisions rest squarely within the discretion of the district cour.t See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc.v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 704 F.3d 413, 432 (5th Cir.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 6 of 7
2013). In fact, in the only case cited by the David Plaintiffs on this issue, In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 109 F.3d 1016 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit stated that while it did not necessarily approve of the district court’s csae management plan, it was nevertheless loathe to disturb the district court’s discretionary determination as to an appropr iate case management plan and the appropriate procedure for and use of an initial trial involving only the claims of a sampling ofplaintiffs from a larger group.Id. at 1018. The Fifth Circuit went on to caution, however, that “before a tiral court may utilize results from a bellwether trial for a purpose that extends beyond the individual cases tried, it must, prior to any extrapolation, find that the c ases tried are representative of the larger group of cases or claims from which they are selected.” Id. at 1020.
The first trial in this case, while it will have obvious ramifications for the case as a whole, is not a “bellwether” trial. The Court does not intend the results of the first trial in this case to be extrapolated to later trials. Nor does the Court intend the jury’s findings as to the plaintiffs in the first trial to apply to anyone but thoseparticular plaintiffs. The Court also notes that n either the David Plaintiffs nor Signal intend for the first trial to have a binding effect on the later trials or for the results of the first trial to be extrapolated in any way. The Fifth Circuit’s cautionary statements about the preclusive effect of bellwether trials does not control the Court’s discretionary case management decisions in this case.
Not only is the David Plaintiffs’ attempt to relitigate this issue by way of motion to reconsider inappropriate, they also have not established that Judge Zainey’s case management plan will result in manifest injustice. The Court, in its discretion, denies the David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider be
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 206 Filed 07/15/13 Page 7 of 7 and hereby is DENIED. Judge Zainey’s case managementplan remains in effect, as does this Court’s ruling on Signal’s motion to sever.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this1_5_th_ day of July, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International (Civil Action No. 12-557) (“EEOC”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Co urt is plaintiff Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission’s (“the

EEOC” or “the Commission”) “Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discover y.”1 P laintiff-

intervenors ("the Intervenors") support the EEOC’s motion.

2 Defendant Sig nal

International, LLC (“Signal”) opposes the EEOC’s motion3. The EEOC has also filed a reply

in further support of its motion to bifurcate4 and a notice of supplemental authority.5 For

1 R. Doc. 141. 2 R. Doc. 149. 3 R. Doc. 150. 4 R. Doc. 160. 5 R. Doc. 183.
1

the reasons set forth below, the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate is granted in part and denied in part.
I. THE EEOC'S CLAIMS The EEOC asserts four bases for its claims for relief against Signal in this case:6
(1) that Signal “created and perpetuated a hostile work environment,”in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a);
(2) that Signal subjected certain employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorabel than enjoyed by other employees, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a);
(3) that Signal retaliate d agai nst specific employees who complained about Signal’s employment practices, in violation of § 704(a) of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); and
(4) that Signal “engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting its Indian Employees to a host ile environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment based on their race and national origin,” in violation of § 706(f)(1), § 706(f)(3), and § 707 of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, respectively.
II. BIFURCATION GENERALLY
6 See R. Doc. 153 (the EEOC’s amended complaint). While this amended complaint was filed after the motion to bifurcate now before the Court, the amendments were, in large part, technical, and have no substantive effect on the Court’s resolution of the motion to bifurcate. Indeed, in the motion to bifurcate, the EEOC noted the amendment to correct a citation. See R. Doc. 141-1 at p. 6 n. 4.
2

Federal Rule of Civil Proce dure 42(b) provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, thecourt may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). The decision to bifurcate pursuant to this rule is left to the discretion of the district court. See, e.g., Malin Intern. Ship Repair and Drydock, Inc. v. Veolia Es Special Servs., Inc., 369 F. App’x 553, 555 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).
III. PHASE I The Court agrees that bifurcation of the case for discovery and trial is appropriate with respect to the EEOC's pattern or practiceclaim for disparate treatment as bifurcation will aid in the swift and efficient resolution ofthese claims. The Court declines to bifurcate the EEOC's pattern or practice hostile work environment claim because of the sub jective nature of the proof required. See EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am. , 990 F. Supp. 1059, 1078-79 (C.D. Ill. 1998);Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Company, 824 F. Supp. 847, 875 (D. Minn. 1993); EEOC v. JBS United States, LLC, 2011 LEXIS 87127, at *17 (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2011). Liability and injunctive relief under th e EEOC's pattern or practice claim for disparate treatment to be litigated in Phaes I will proceed under the framework the United States Supreme Court delineated in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1997). Should the trier o f fact fin d liability regarding the EEOC's pattern or practice claim in Phase I, appropraite prospective injunctive relief will be decided by the Court. Post-trial briefing concerningthe appropriateness and type of injunctive and equitable relief will be allowed. IV. Phase II
3

The remaining claims asserted by the EEOC and all claims asserted by the
Intervenors will be tried in Phase II, including punitive damages. The Supreme Court has
made it clear that any punitive damages determination must be "reasonable and
proportionate" to the amount of actual (i.e. compensatory) damages. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 426 (2003). Further, it would be unfair to ask
a jury to determine punitive damages against an employer without determining how many
individual employees were actually negative ly impacted by the alleged discriminatory
conduct. See Phillip Morris USA v. Williams , 549 U.S. 346, 354 (2007). The EEOC's
proposal that the jury in Phase I determine punitive damages runs afoul of the principles
articulated in bothState Farm andPhilip Morris. This Court must follow the Fifth Circuit's
reasoning in Allison v. Citgo , 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998), which rejected the idea that
punitive damages should be assessed on a classw- ide basis at the conclusion of the liability
phase:
Punitive damages cannot be assessed merely upon a finding that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. Such a finding establishes only that there has been general harm to the group and that injunctive relief is appropriate.See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 266 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the ju dgment). Actual liability to individual class members, and their entitlement to moneta ry relief, are not determined untilthe second stage of the trial.See id.; Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1004 (3d Cir. 1984). And because punitive damages must be reasonably related to the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct and to the compensatory damages awa rded to the plaintiffs, recovery of punitive damages must necessa rily turn on the recovery of compensatory damages.
Id. at 417.
Handling punitive damages in Phase II will allow the jury to make the fact-specific
determinations necessary for each claimant.See EEOC v. Int'l Profit Assocs., 2007 LEXIS
4

78378 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007). V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate be and hereby
is GRANTED IN PART but DENIED to the extent it seeks a determination of its hostile work environment pattern or practice claim and its punitive damages claim in Phase I.
In a previous motion, the EEOC requested anorder requiring the parties to develop and submit a joint case management order in this case. 7 Because that request was contingent in part upon the Court’s resolution of the instant motion to bifurcate the trial of this matter, the Court denied the EEOC’s reqeust and informed the parties that this issue would be revisited when the Court resolved the motion to bifurcate.8
The Court notes there is a pending motionfor partial dismissal filed by Signal.9 That motion rela tes o nly to the recruitment clai m filed by the Intervenors and the motion's resolution, even if granted, will not defeat alcllaims filed by the Intervenors. The pendency of this claim does not affect the parti es' ability to craft a case management order with respect to all other claims.
The Court order s the EEOC to submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order ("DPCMO"), and a memorandum in support of its proposal, for Phase I and Phase II within fourteen (14) days of this Order. The DPCMO shall cover all topics necessary for the orderly preparation for and tiral of Phase I and Phaes II, including but not limited to the following topics: the discovery tobe taken in each phase, including any issues
7 R. Doc. 192. 8 R. Doc. 198. 9See R. Doc. 184 (motion to dismiss).
5

regarding discovery of electronicallystored information and coordination of discovery with the David case; the claims to be tried in each phase (in accordance with this Order), with statutory citations for the basis for each claim; the identities of the claimant(s) for each claim in each phase; the elements of, and the burden of proof to be applied to, each claim in each phase;10 the presumptions or inferences resulting from any previous findings; the affirmative defenses available with respect to each claim in each phas e; the effect of any pattern or practice finding in Phase I on individual claims in Phase II; the relief requested for each claim in each phase; the time needed for trial of each phase; and suggested dates for the pre-trial conference and trial of each phase. The EEOC is instructed to confer with the Intervenors and Signal in an attempt to resolve as many issues regarding the DPCMO as possible prior to the filing of the EEOC's porposed DPCMO. In the event that agreement is not reached on all issue s, Signal and the In tervenors shall file their objections to the proposed DPCMO, and supporting memorand um, and their counter-proposals, withi n seven (7) days of the filing of the EEOC proposal.
After consideration of the parties' proposals and memoranda, the Court will enter a DPCMO for Phase I and Phase II. The Court ismindful of the fact that adjustments will likely be necessary as the case progresse s but fi nds it desirable for the orderly administration of this case for a DPCMO to be entered at this time.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1_9_th_ day of August, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10The EEOC has stipulated that its pattern or practice claims are to be decided within the framework the United States Supreme Court delineated in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1997).
6

Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C.

SECTION "E" (3)

ORDER

On July 31, 2013, the EEOC's Motion for Protective Order [Doc. #207] and the Motion of

Defendant Signal International, L.L.C. for Protective Order [Doc. #208] came on for oral hearing

before the undersigned. Present were Gerald M iller and Julie Bean on behalf of plaintiff EEOC,

Daniel Werner and Thomas Fritzsche on behalf of plaintiffs-intervenors, and Erin Hangartner and

Hal Ungar on behalf of defendant Signal Internationla, L.L.C. After the oral hearing, the Court took

the motion under advisement. Having reviewed the motion, the opposition and the case law, the

Court rules as follow.

I. Background

This is a companion case toDavid v. Signal International, L.L.C,. and this Court has repeated

the factual background on numerous occasions and will not do so again. See David v. Signal Int'l,

L.L.C., Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 WL 4344540 (E.D. La. Sept. 21, 2012).

II. The EEOC's Motion for Protective Order [Doc. #207] A. The EEOC's Contentions The EEOC f irst asks the Court to grant its m otion to protect inf ormation that has an
inherently in terrorem effect. It asks the Court to pr ohibit de fendants from inquiring into any individual's immigration history or status. Citing case law, it notes that courts have held that social security numbers ("SSNs"), employment histories, places of birth, places of residence, post-Signal employment history and income, information about family members and tax documents have an in terrorem ef fect. It does not disput e that def endants are entitled to any alias used during an individual's employment with them.
The EEOC argues that the im migration status of any individual ha s no bearing on his entitlement to protection under Title VII and Section1981. It contends that even were the Court to find the information relevant, that relevance is ouwt eighed by the risk of injury and prejudice to any individual. It maintains that the production ofsuch information will chill or outright preclude some of the individuals'claims. The EEOC argues thatcourts have recognized that the production of such information m ay even preclude other workers from m aintaining their claim s, thus lim iting the enforcement of the federal civil rights statutes. It contends that it must be able to ensure all of the individuals' involvem ent in this lawsuit, thei r availability for discovery and trial a nd t heir willingness to communicate with the government as witnesses and victims.
The EEOC also notes that there is a widely-recognized policy against the disclosure of tax returns. It maintains that forcing such disclosure threatens the effective administration of our tax laws given the self-reporting of income and would deter future plaintiffs fromcoming forward. The EEOC contends that this reasoning applies to any document that would reveal income received or
2

sources of incom e (other than that received fr om Si gnal). It m aintains that Signal can not demonstrate the relevance of such documents. The EEOC argues that courts have routinely held that any relevance of a civil rights plaintifsf'employment history is outweighed by the risk of harmposed to the plaintiff.
The EEOC notes that the rest of the protectiveorder sets out the procedure for all parties to follow in handling documents that a party deems to be confidential.
B. Signal's Opposition Signal notes that this Court earlier denied it access to T-visa applications and other immigration-related documents in the related David lawsuit. Signal also notes that when it did so, the Court stated that the parties were concentrated on class-certification discovery, and that Signal may be able to establish such information's admissibility at trial during a later phase. In the order denying class certification, the District Court noted that it did not bel ieve that the im migration evidence would remain collateral for purposes of trial. Signal notes that the District Court noted that plaintiffs were complicit with Signal when entering the country. This, Signal contends, alters the balance in its favor. Noting that this Court earlier relied on a decision fromthe Ninth Circuit, Signal contends that the Fifth Circuit has never examined nor adopted that decision.See Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc,. 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). Signal doubts that the Fifth Cricuit would adopt the Ninth Circuits' sweeping statement that never in an employment lawsuit will this information be relevant. Signal m aintains that it sim ply seeks to en force its constitutional right under the Fif th Amendment to impeach its antagonists with powerful evidence that is probative of bias or lack of credibility. Signal contends that the evidence is squarely rooted in the litigation's origins. As the
3

District Court recognized, plaintiffs knew that green cards were difficult to obtain, and they could only obtain them from the United States government. The District Court also recognized that some of the plaintiffs were willing to misrepresent to obtain entry to the United States. An example of such misrepresentation, Signal argues, would be to devise a story of trafficking to remain here with their families. The District Court also noted that given the plaintif fs' own com plicity in doing whatever was necessary to enter this country, Signal (and others) m ay be a ble to prove that the injuries alleged were not proxim ately caused by defendants' conduct. The District Cour t a lso pointed out that at least one pl aintiff had worked in this country before under the H-2B visa and would have understood the temporary nature of such a visa.
Signal maintains that it and the EEOC m ust wo rk together to craf t a plan to utilize the information with as little collateral damage as possible. It argues that it is unreservedly willing to minimize this Court's and the EEOC's concerns.
Signal contends that it has a right to full, probing and effective cross-examination of every member of the class as to m otive. It m aintains that the EEOC potentially intends to present as witnesses at trial the approximately 500 class members here, and it has the right to cross-examine them to determine whether they invented the appalling conditions to bolstertheir trafficking claims.
Signal consents to the majority of the remaining protective order, but notes that it does not consent to the following: "Finally, as a federal governm ent agency, the EEOC has substantial obligations to disclose documents not prohibited from disclosure by law, or valid reason." Signal notes that the EEOC cites to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") as authority but contends that FOIA exempts federal courts from its provisions.
4

III. The Motion of Defendant Signal International, L.L.C. for Protective Order [Doc. #208] A. Signal's Contentions While this memorandum is near identical to its opposition to the EEOC' s motion, Signal
notes in the section on handling the confidential information that it seeks to avoid the abuse of the discovered material. As an example, it points to plaintiffs' appearances on Dan Rather Reports to lambaste it. Citing case law, Signal notes that tehUnited States Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have held that parties do not have a First Am endment right to dissemi nate, in advance of trial, information gained through the pre-trial discovery process. Courts that have ruled similarly have held that parties may only publish, disseminate or use the information when necessary to prepare for or to try the case. Signal also seeks to protect the privacy of non-parties in its subm itted proposed protective order.
B. The EEOC's Opposition After detailing alleged examples of Signal's intransigence during the initial-discovery phase – i.e., refusing to produce documents, refusing to produce documents in a certain format, refusing to meet with IT employees to discuss electronically-stored information ("ESI") – the EEOC notes that Signal is surreptitiously asking the Coutrto enter the protective ordersrfom theDavid litigation, albeit it without the in terrorem provisions. The EEOC also notes that Signal asks the Court to adopt the protective order [Doc. #1352] in which thisCourt declined to order Signal to re-produce documents in their native format. The EEOC argues that it is not bound by David, and because Signal surreptitiously a sks the Court to adopt th e order for that reason, the EEOC contends that Signal has waived the issue. The EEOC argues that the two lawsuits are separate and distinct, have not been consolidated, and it has been affordedno opportunity to be heard on the protective orders
5

in the David litigation. The EEOC maintains that there is no case law to support the blanket adoption of protective
orders in another lawsuit. It argues that it has no idea to which documents each specific protective order refers, and while asking the Court to adopt all of theDavid protective orders, Signal lists only three (there were m ore). The EEOC not es that under Rule 34, courts routinely order parties to produce ESI in native format, with metadata attached.
The EEOC contends that the District Court's class-certification decision in David is of no moment as it was not a party and is not bound by that a dverse decision. It notes that this Court determined that current immigration status is irrelevant because of its in terrorem effect, and the relevancy, if any, did not outweigh the public interset in allowing employees to enforce their rights. It maintains that this Court ha s al ready rejected Signal' s argument that such evidence bears on motive or bias or credibility.
Noting Signal's case law on which it now relies, the EEOC argues that such case law was decided in 1972 and 1984, and it is thusnot an intervening change in the law. The EEOC also cites its own Supreme Court and lower court case law in which the courts note that trial courts possess wide latitude to impose restrictions on the cross-examination of a witness.
The EEOC m aintains that Signal' s request ed provision barring the dissem ination of information is vague, overbroad and unworkable, and that the provision does not appear to bar Signal from dissemination. The EEOC contends that such a provision is unsupported by the law. Signal tried this once before, and the District C ourt denied it. The EEOC argues that Signal ha s failed to demonstrate good cause for such an order. It maintains that Signal can not demonstrate good cause because there has been no publicity in the last 18 months.
6

With regard to the addresses and telephonenumbers of former Signal employees, the EEOC has no objection to the provision if it is modified to allow dissemination to persons deemed, in good faith by counsel, necessary to the prosecution of the lawsuit. III. Intervenor's Combined Opposition to Si gnal's Motion for Protective Order and in
Support of the EEOC's Motion For Protective Order [Doc. #212] Intervenors note that Signal's arguments presuppose that the outcome and findings in this lawsuit or any other civil action bearon the requirements for a T or U visa1. They maintain that any individual may apply for a T or U visa, and none ofthe factors relates to participation or victory in a civil action. Intervenor s thus did not need to sue – and thus did not need to contrive their deplorable conditions – to obtain a T or U visa. Intervenors allege that Signal seeks to sim ply punish them – certa inly by inquiring into information regarding their wives and children. Intervenors note that Signal has in the past made it clear that it would contact immigration officials and urge enforcement actions against them. Intervenors also contend that Signal' s desire to i mpose a blanket ban on dissem ination is unsupported by the law. Distinguishing the case law on which Signal relies, Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984), they not e that there, the moving party sought to im pose a ban on specific dissemination related to their donors, nota blanket ban of all information produced during discovery. Intervenors argue that the blanket "attorneys' eyes only" designation as to home addresses and telephone numbers is overbroad, given that attorneys must sometimes discuss this information with their staff, clients and expert witnesses. Intervenors also object to the suggestion that counsel

1

The intervenors here are – generically – the plaintiffs in the related David lawsuit.

7

must serve subpoenas on a non-party should it wish to speak to the non-party a nd use the home address and telephone number with respect to serving such a subpoena. Such a pr ovision would delay litigation and increase expense. IV. Law and Analysis
The Federal Rules state that before a protectievorder may issue, the movant must show good cause why justice requires an order to protect a party or person from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). To make a showing of good cause, the movant has the burden of showing the injury “with specificity.” Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 72 (3d Cir. 2000). In other words, the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986). To establish good cause, a party seeking a protective order must set forth particular a nd s pecific dem onstrations of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n.16 (1981); In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998). Broad alle gations of harm , unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test. See Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121 (citing United States v. Garrett , 571 F.2d 1323, 1326, n.3 (5th Cir. 1978)) (requi ring “ a particular and specific dem onstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements”); Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Corp., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973); 8 C. Wright, A. Miller & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2035 (Supp. 1985). Moreover, the alleged harm must be significant, not a mere trifle. See Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121 (citingJoy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 894 (2d Cir.1982)).
This Court finds the EEOC' s argument persuasive with regard to the current im migration
8

status of intervenors. Even if intervenors' current im migration status was relevant to the claim s asserted by the EEOC, discovery of such inform ation would have an in timidating effect on an employee's willingness to assert his workplace rights and subject such an em ployee to potential deportation. See, e.g., Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[W]ere we to direct district courts to grant discovery request s for information related to im migration status in every case involving national origin discrim ination under Title VII, countless acts of illegal and reprehensible conduct would go unreported.”); In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1987) (granting mandamus and ordering district court to withdrawportion of discovery order allowing discovery of immigrants' current immigration status). The case law substantiates these fearsS.ee, e.g., Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) (noting that employer reported five undocumented workers after they voted in favor of union representation);Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp,. 214 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2000) (allowing plaintiffs to plead their claims anonymously due to their fear of retaliatory deportation); Fuentes v. INS , 765 F.2d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that employer reported undocumented workers he had employed for three years for less than minimum wage when they filed suit to recover wages owed)v, acated on other grounds by Fuentes v. IN,S844 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R's Oil, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that employer recruited undocumented worker and then reported himto the INS after he filed an FLSA claimfor unpaid wages);Contreras v. Corinthian Vigor Ins. Brokerage, Inc,. 25 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (noting that em ployer reported an undocum ented worker after she filed an FLSA claim for unpaid wages).
This is an action for unpaid wages and overtim e for work actually perform ed for Signal. Courts have recognized the in terrorem effect of inquiring into a party' s immigration status and
9

authorization to work in this country when irrelevant to any m aterial claim because it presents a
“danger of intimidation [that] would inhibit plaintiffs in pursuing their rights.”Liu v. Donna Karan
Int'l, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 191, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citations omitted). Here, intervenors' current
immigration status is a collateral issue. The protective order becomes necessary as “[i]t is entirely
likely t hat a ny undocum ented [litigant] forced to produce docum ents related to his or her
immigration status will withdraw from the suit rather than produce such docum ents and face . . .
potential deportation.” Topo v. Dhir , 210 F.R.D. 76, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quot ing Flores v.
Albertsons Inc., No. CV100515AHM, 2002 WL 1163623, *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr . 9, 2002)); see also
EEOC v. First Wireless Group, Inc. , 225 F.R.D. 404 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that good cause
shown for protective order where disclosure of im migration status woul d cause embarrassment,
potential criminal charges, or deportation if status was discovered to be illegal).
The EEOC – and intervenors – have de monstrated good cause under Rule 26(c) for a
protective order to prohibit the disputed information. This Court has already held twice – and been
upheld once in holding – that the disclosure of the information that Signal seeks would create anin
terrorem effect on interevenors. Courts frequently grant protective orders to protect an immigrant's
current immigration status. In Topo, for example, the court noted:
Plaintiff asserts that by seeking information on her immigration status, defendants are attempting to exploit the discovery process in an attempt to threaten plaintiff's continued prose cution of her claim s. The court need not find such om inous undertones in defendant' s discovery requests. Plaintiff' s fears of her im migration status deterring further prosecution of her claim s are we ll-founded. Courts have generally recognized the in terrorem effect of inquiring into a party' s immigration status when irrelevant to any m aterial claim. In particular, courts have noted that allowing parties to inquire about the im migration status of other parties, whe n not relevant, would present a “danger of intim idation [that] would inhibit plaint iffs in pursuing their rights.” Liu v. Donna Karan International, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 191, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citations omitted). Were plaintiff's immigration status relevant to prove a material aspect of the defense, a protective order would not be appropriate.
10

However, when the question of a partys' immigration status only goes to a collateral issue, as in this case, the protective ordebr ecomes necessary as “[i]t is entirely likely that any undocumented [litigant] forced to produce documents related to his or her immigration status will withdraw from the suit rather than produce such documents and face ... potential deportation.” Flores v. Albertsons Inc., 2002 WL 1163623, *5 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Although the cases addressing this issue typically relate to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the underlying principle is still the same. When the potential for abuse of procedure is high, the Court can and should act within its discretion to limit the discovery process, even if re levancy is determ ined. The c ourt finds, however, for the reasons listed below that, atbest, plaintiff's immigration status is a collateral issue not relevant to any material aspect of the case.
210 F.R.D. 76, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Here, intervenors' immigration status is a collateral issue and
does not go the m erits of Si gnal's defense. This Court can not fathom in what way any such
information would be relevant to the issues i n this suit. Given that intervenors have invoked the
Fifth A mendment b efore, S ignal w ill n ot b e a ble to u se e vidence o f p rior c rimes to im peach
intervenors at trial. In addition, the grounds for aindmissibility are irrelevant to any claimor defense
here. The reasons why a particular intervenor may be refused admission to this country will not
impact any evidence submitted at trial. Further, any information on family members who are not
parties to this lawsuit is clearly irrelevant.
Signal asserts that inf ormation as to current im migration status would allow them to test
intervenors' credibility. As the Court has noted before, credibility is always at issue. That, in and of
itself, does not wa rrant a n inquiry into the s ubject of current im migration status when such
examination would impose an undue burden on private enforcement of employment discrimination
laws. See Rengifo v. Erevos Enters., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 4266, 2007 WL 894376 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20,
2007) (concluding that the opportunity to test th e credibility of a party based on r epresentations
made when seeking employment does not outweigh the chilling effect that disclosure of immigration
status has on employees seeking to enforce their rights); Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado,
11

Inc., 236 F.R.D. 190, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “W hile documented workers face the possibility of retaliatory discharge for an assertion of theirlabor and civil rights, undocumented workers confront the harsher reality that, in addition to possible discharge, their employer will likely report them to the INS and they will be subjected to deporttaion proceedings or criminal prosecution.” Rivera, 364 F.3d at 1064. In Rivera, the court observed that granting em ployers the right to inquire into immigration status in employment cases would allow them to im plicitly raise threats of such negative consequences when a worker reports illegal practices. Id. at 1065. And while Signal maintains that the Fifth Circuit would not adopt the reasoning underlying Rivera, this Court notes that the Fifth Circuit has on one occasion issued a writ of mandamus – an extraordinary remedy – to order a district court to withdraw that porti on of its discovery order that allowed discovery of immigrants' current immigration status. Reyes, 814 F.2d at 170-71. As it has before, this Court finds that Signal' s opportunity to test the cred ibility of plaintiffs doe s not outweigh the public interest in allowing employees to enforce their rights.
That the parties are not in class-certification discovery proceedings is of no moment. The case law cited by this Court does not distinguish between class-certification and m erits-based discovery to arrive at their conclusions. Indeed,in many of the cases, it is not readily apparent that the plaintiffs sought class certification. The Court finds that the underlying reasoning and analysis of those courts apply equally here at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court grants the EEOC's motion with respect to this issue. Thisholding includes the non-disclosure of intervenors' tax returns. Galaviz-Zamora v. Brady Farms, Inc., 230 F.R.D 499, 503 (W.D. Mich. 2005).
As noted above, Signal also challenges the EEOC's inclusion of the following language in the procedure to be followed with regard to c onfidential docum ents: "Finally, as a federal
12

government agency, the EEOC has substantial obligations to disclose documents not prohibited from disclosure by law, or valid reason." Signal citesValenti v. U.S. Department of Justice, 503 F. Supp. 230 (E.D. La 1980), as support for its argume nt that such language should be stricken from the proposed protective order because the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") doe s not apply to courts of the United States. The Court finds Valenti distinguishable.
The FOIA requires that each agency of the government shall make available to the public information of a variety of kinds consisting mainly of agency records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)-(3). In defining the term“agency,” the Act itself specificallyexempts “the courts of the United States” from the definition. Id. § 551(1)(B). In Valenti, the question before the court was whether a witness before the grand jury was entitled to a transcript of hi s testimony before the grand jury under the FOIA. See id. at 231-33. The court, relying on Sectio5n51(1)(B), ultimately concluded that he was not because the grand jury is an arm of the court, and the plaintiff's testimony was thus generated by a court – and not an agency – of the United States. See id. at 232-33.
That is not the situation here. The proposed portective orders in this lawsuit will not protect from disclosure records generated by a court of the United States. The records involved in the discovery process will be generated by the parties, one of which is an agency of the United States and subject to the FOIA. Valenti is thus inapposite.
Notwithstanding this finding, however, the Cour t finds that a protective or der prohibiting parties from publicly disseminating information gleaned through the pre-trial discovery process is warranted here. Given the highly sensitive natureof this lawsuit and the potential for abuse through the media, the Court finds Signal's arguments persuasive on this point. T he case law is rife with support for the argum ent that no party to a laws uit has a Fir st Amendment right to dissem inate
13

information obtained through the pre-trial discoveryprocess, and this Courts' discretion is broad on this point. See, e.g. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart , 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (holding that when "a protective order is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), is limited to the context of pre-trial civil di scovery, and does not restrict the dissem ination of the inform ation if gained from other sources, it does not offend the First Amendment."); Harris v. Amoco Prod. Co., 768 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1985) (holdingthat the EEOC was not entitled to "receive full use of amterial discovered as an intervenor, whether that use is further investigation, litigation, or intera gency cooperation."); Greene v. Thalhimer's Dep't Store, 93 F.R.D. 657, 661 (E.D. Va. 1982) (limiting use of discovered material relating to EEOC conciliation efforts).
While the Court recognizes that Signal's request is broad – and the EEOC and intervenors object to such an expansive protective order – the Court also recognizes the highly sensitive nature of this lawsuit. There has already been substantial media coverage of this lawsuit, and there is the potential for more. This Court finds that the material gleaned through the pre-trial discovery process should be limited to the preparation for and use at trial and for no other purpose until this dispute is resolved, through trial or settlem ent. This Court can not fathom why the dissemination of any information obtained through the discovery process ouwt eighs the privacy interest of the parties and non-parties at this time. And the EEOCs' interest in complying with FOIA is of no moment pending trial. See Harris, 768 F.2d at 685. The EEOCs' obligations under FOIA are limited to requests by the public, which at this time are negligible at best concerning this lawsuit. There is no mandatory dissemination requirement under the FOIA.
With regard to the production of electronically-stored information ("ESI"), the Court notes that Rules 34 governs the production of such data. The parties are the masters of their production
14

requests, and they m ay request ESI in any form at allowed under the rules. Autotech Techs. Ltd. P'ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 248 F.R.D 556, 560 (N.D. Ill. 2008). The protective order in David [Doc. #1352] is inapplicable here.
With regard to the addresses and telephone numbers of former Signal employees, the Court finds that the parties may disseminate such information to persons deemed in good faith necessary to the prosecution of the lawsuit. And lastl y, the Court will not order the parties to serve a subpoena on a non-party should it wish to speak said non-party. Such a practice would be a waste of the Court's and the parties' resources. V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDEREDthat the EEOCs' Motion for Protective Order [Doc. #207] and the Motion of Defendant Signal International, L.L.C. for Protective Order [Doc. #208] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as outlined above. The parties shall meet and confer no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order to confect a protective order in conf ormity with this Court's reasoning, and no l ater than ten (10) days from said date , the parties shall f ile said protective order for this Court's approval. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of September, 2013.
DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International (Civil Action No. 12-557) (“EEOC”)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is defendant Signal International, LLC's ("Signal") “Partial Motion for Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.”1 PlaintiffsIntervenors ("the Intervenors") oppose Signal's motion. 2 Signal also has filed a reply i n further support of its motion to dismiss. 3 For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

1 R. Doc. 184. 2 R. Doc. 188. 3 R. Doc. 191.
1

BACKGROUND The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") filed a complaint against Signal for various violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"4). The Intervenors, a group of Signal's former employees, filed a complaint in intervention, seeking prospective relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) and compensatory damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.5 The Intervenors also incul ded a claim against Signal for recruitment fees (the "Recruitment Cla im") they paid to Michael Pol, d/b/a Global Resources, Inc. ("Pol"), Malvern C. Burntet d/b/a Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC ("Burnett"), and Sachin Dewan d/b/a DewanConsultants Pvt. Ltd ("Dewan") (Pol, Burnett, and Dewan collectively referre d to as the "Recruiters"). 6 The Intervenors' amended complaint added nine (9) additional plaintiff-intervenors in their action against Signal but included the same prayer for recruitment fees as the original complaint. 7 The Intervenors seek recover y of the recruitment fees they incurred because o f Signal's discriminatory pra ctices in violation of Title VII which they say are recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1). Signal moves to dismiss theIntervenors' Recruitment Claim arguing that (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1)does not provide judicial relief for the Recruitment Claim; (2) Intervenors failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with regards to the
4R. Doc. 1. 5R. Doc. 45. Although the Intervenors' complaint does not explicitly address the statute, the only avenue available for the Intervenors to recover these damages for employment discrimination under Title VII is through 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 6R. Doc. 45. 7R. Doc. 179
2

Recruitment Claim; and (3) Title VII does not apply extraterritorially.8 ANALYSIS
I. Waiver and Timeliness of Signal's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Initially, the Intervenors argue Signal's 12(b)(6) motion is untimely because Signal
failed to raise this defense in response to the Intervenor's original complaint. They argue the grounds for Signal's 12(b)(6) motion exis ted in the original complaint and Signal's ability to bring the motion was not "re vived" me rely because the Intervenors filed an amended complaint. See In re Morrison, 421 B.R. 381, 386 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009). The Intervenors argue that the amended complaintdid not create a new basis for their 12(b)(6) motion, therefore Signal should have raised the defense in a motion to dismiss the original complaint. Id.
It is true that under Federal Rule of Civl iProcedure Rule 12(b) a defendant asserting a 12(b) defense must do so before filing an answer. See Russell v. Choicepoint Servs. Inc., 302 F.Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. La. 2003). But Signarlesponds that its 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss targets the Intervenor's First Amende d Co mplaint, a pleading that Signal has not yet answered.9
The Court need not de cide whether the filing of the amended complaint provided another opportunity fo r Signal to file a 12 (b)(6) motion because, even if PlaintiffsIntervenors amended complaint did not create a new basis for Signal to lodge its 12(b)(6) motion, Signal's ability to raise failure to state a claim as a defense has not been lost. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(2) allows aparty to raise the defense of failure to state
8R. Doc. 184. 9R. Doc. 184-1, p. 1.
3

a claim by a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). F ED. R. CIV. P.
12(h)(2). A Rule 12(c) motion for judgmenton the pleadings may be made after an answer
has been filed. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). If Signal's 12(b)(6) motion was waived because it was
not filed in response to Intervenors' original complaint, the Court may nevertheless treat
the motion as a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim for
which relief may be granted. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999).
II. Standard of Law
Whether Signal's motion is treated as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or as a Rule
12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings does not change the legal standard the Court
must apply. The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)J.ohnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 528 (5th
Cir. 2004). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may
dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factuaalllegations in support of his claim that would
entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier v.
Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007). As the Fifth Circuit expla ined in Gonzales v.
Kay:
"Factual allegations must be enough toraise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 195 5, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The Supreme Court recently expounded upon theTwombly standard, explaining that "[t]o survive a motion to dismi ss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 128 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929). "A Claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
4

alleged." Id. It follows that "where the well-pleaded factds o not permit the court to infer more than the mere po ssibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009).
The Court cannot look beyond the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted. See S pivey v. Robertson , 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999); Baker v . Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In assessing the Intervenors' complaint, the Court must accept all well-plea ded facts as true and liberally construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the Intervenors. Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774; Lowrey v. Tex A & M Univ. Sys,.117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). "Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint 'on its face show[s] a bar to relief." Cutrer v. McMillan, 308 F. App'x 819, 820 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co., 794 F.2d 967, 970 (5th Cir. 1986)). A court may grant a motion f or ju dgment on the pleadings when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the case can be decided as a matter of law. Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). III. Extraterritorial Application of Title VII
Signal moves to dismiss the Intervenors' Recuitment Claim because Title VII does not apply extraterritorially. 10 Intervenors in response argue that the extraterriorial application of Title VII is not required because the Intervenors worked at Signal's facilities in the United States.11 Signal concedes, and this Court agrees, that the Intervenors' other Title VII claims based on conditions within theUnited States present no extraterritoriality
10R. Doc. 184, p. 8. 11R. Doc.
5

issues.12 On the other hand, the alleged discriminatory conduct in connection with the

Recruitment Claim relates to events outside of the United States before the Intervenors

began work at Signal's facilities.

The Court must acknowledge the "longsta nding principle of American law 'that

legislation of Congress, unless contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the

territorial jurisdiction of the United States."EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S.

244, 248 (1991) (quoting Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo , 3 36 U .S. 281, 285 (19 49)). Th is

important principle "serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and

those of other nations which could result in international discord."

Id. Thus, the

presumption against extraterritorial application of a federal statute can be overcome only

if there is an "affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed."Id. (quoting Benz v.

Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138, 147 (1957)). Because this determination

is "a matter of statutory construction,"Arabian, 499 U.S. at 248, theCourt begins with the

text of Title VII.

Section 2000e(f) of Title VII provides that"with respect to employment in a foreign

country, such term [employee] includes an indviidual who is a citizenof the United States."

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). Further, section 2000e-1(a) states that Title VII "shall not apply to

an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State." 42 U.S.C . §

2000e-1(a); See Iwata v. Stryker Corp. , 59 F.Supp. 2d 600, 603 (N.D. Tex. 1999). Read

together, the two statutes show Congress' inteniton to exclude non-citizens located outside

of the United States from the protection of Title VII.See id. at 604. However, non-citizens

are covered by the statute if they are working in the United States. See Espinoza v. Farah

12R. Doc. 184, p. 10. 6

Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86, 95 (1973).

In the case before the Court, it is

undisputed that the Intervenors paid all

recruitment fees prior to their arrival in theUnited States. Signal's alleged discriminatory

acts, r equiring the Intervenors to pay high er recruitment fees than other non-India n

workers, occurred before the Intervenors came to the United States1.3 Under a plain reading

of section 2000e(f) and section 2000e-1(a), the Intervenors were not covered by Title VII

when they paid the recruitment fees because they were non-citizens and they were not

working within the United States at the time . "It is clear from the plain language of 42

U.S.C. § 2000e(f) and 42 U.S.C . § 2000e-1(a) that Congress inte ntionally excluded

individuals such as Plaintiffs from the protections of Title VII."Iwata v. Stryker Corp., 59

F. Supp. 2d 600, 604 (N.D. Tex. 1999). Further, based on the language of Title VII, there

is no "affirmative intention of Congress clearly expressedt"o cover the recruitment fees that

defeats the presumption against extraterritorial application of the statuteE. EOC v. Arabian

American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (quoting Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.,

353 U.S. 138, 147 (1957)).

The Intervenors argue that an analysis of Title VI'Is extraterritorial application is not

required because the Intervenors eventually worked in the United States1.4 The Intervenors

urge that they were employedwithin the United States underboth of the tests courts apply

to determine the location of an individual's employment. Gomez v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.,

510 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421-24 (W. D. Tex. 2007) (explaining the "center of gravity" test and

13R.Doc. 179. The Court notes that four of the twelve Intervenors paid recruitment fees prior to Signal's involvement in seeking foreign employees to work at its facilities to work in the United States.
14R. Doc. 188
7

the "primary work station test" used to determine whether the plaintiff-employee was employed in the United States); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.D.C. 2002). Regardless of which test Intervenors urge the Court toapply, their argument misses the mark. The Intervenors cann ot recover under Title VII for their Recruitment Claim because ofwhen the claims arose, notwhere the Intervenors eventually worked. The Court notes that the Intervenors may have valdi claims against Signal for acts occurring in the United States after the Intervenors arrived. However, the Recruitment Claim is based on events before the Intervenors arrived in the United State,sfor acts occurring beyond this country's borders and the reach of Title VII.
The most illustrative case involving a discrimination claim based on events prior to the plaintiff-employee's arrival to the United States isReyes-Gaona v. N.C. Growers Ass'n, 250 F.3d 861 (4 th Cir. 2001). In Reyes, the plaintiff sued an American corporation for violations under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Id. Although Reyes does not involve a suit under Ttile VII, the ADEA has almostidentical provisions regarding the application of the statute to non-citizens abroad. 15 The plaintiff, a Mexican resident, applied for a job in North Carolina. Id. at 865. However, the en tire application process occurred in Mexico and the plaintiff's calim was based on events in Mexico.Id. at 863. The Fourth Circuit held that the plani tiff was not entitled to bring a suit under the ADEA simply because the future place of employment was located within the United States. Id. at 866. The court found that the plaintiff was a no n-citizen who was not employed within the United States, which prevented her from having a claim under the ADEA. Id.
15 Title VII and the ADEA's "provisions defining 'employee' and outlining foreign employment are virtually identical." Iwata, 59 F.Supp. 2d at 604.
8

Similarly, the Intervenors were not citize ns and they were not employed in the United States when their Recruitment Claim aroes. A plain reading ofthe text of the statute compels the conclusion that the Intervenors' Recruitment Claim is not viable under Title VII, and therefore compensatory damages cannotbe recovered on this claim under § 1981a. IV. Exhaustion of Remedies
The Court need not reach the issue raised in Signal's motion regarding exhaustion of remedies. Regardless of whether the Interevnors properly exhausted their administrative remedies r egarding the Recruitment Claim, the claim for recruitment fees must be dismissed for the reasons stated above.
The Court also notes that when deciding motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), it must limit its a nalysis to the facts alleged in the pleadings. See Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). In its motion, Signal attached several exhibi ts to support its arguments surrounding the exhaustion of administrative remedies.16 When a court considers inform ation outside the pleadings, a motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Clark v. Tarrant Cnty., Tex., 798 F.2d 736, 745 (5th Cir. 1986). In deciding the present motion, the Court did not consider any matters outsi de of the pleadings. All of the attached exhibits re lated to Signa l's arguments concerning the Intervenors' failure to exhaust administrati ve remedies, an issue the Court does not address. Therefore, Signal's motion is not treated as a motion for summary judgment.
CONCLUSION Signal's motion to dismiss is timely and Si gnal's defense of failure to state a claim
16R. Doc. 184. Signal attached Exhibit "A", "B", "C" and "D" to its motion to dismiss. 9

for which relief can be granted is not waiv ed. The Intervenor's Recruitment Claim for compensatory damages under §1981a(a)(1) is not recoverable under Title VII. At the time the basis for the Intervenor's claim arose, the Intervenors were not "employees" as defined by Title VII because they were aliens outsidethe United States. Accordingly, Signal's motion to dismiss the Recruitment Claim is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2_6_t_h day of September, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
10

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221)
SECTION "E"

Applies To: EEOC v. Signal (12-557) ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Signal In ternational, LLC's ("Signal") Motion to

1

Review Magistrate Judge's Order.1 Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") opposes Signal's motion.2 Plaintiffs-Intervenors also oppose Signal's motion.3
BACKGROUND The EEOC brought suit against Signal under Ttile VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq. ("Title VII"), for discriminating against approximately 500 Indian national employe es who worked and lived in Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas. The EEOC and Signal each filed a Motion for a Protective Order on July 16, 2013. The EEOC sought an order protecting private information of the Indian employees and their families from discovery, including immigration status, history or proceedings, their post-Signal employment and income history, and their post-Signal addresses.4 Signal opposed the EEOC's motion, ar guing the information is necessary to protect its c onstitutional right under the Fi fth Amendment to impeach those testifying against Signal because the information is probaitve of bias, motive, and lack of credibility5. Signal filed a motion seeking a protective order of its own to prevent the dissemination of information gained through pretrial discov ery and to make former Signal employees' addresses and telephone numbers privy to only counsel in the case.6 The Magistrate Judge granted in part and de nied in part the parties' motions in a
1R. Doc. 252. 2R. Doc. 281. 3R. Doc. 265. 4R. Doc. 207. 5R. Doc. 215. 6R. Doc. 208.
2

single order on September 10, 2013.7 The Magistrate Judge granted the EEOC's protective order with respect to the private informationof the employees and their families, including immigration information, post-Signal employment and income history, post-Signal addresses, and tax documents.8 Signal's protective order was granted in part, and limited the use of materials gleaned through pre trial discovery to preparation for and for use at trial.9 The Magistrate Judge also granted Signal's protective order limiting disclosure of Signal's former employees' addresses and telephone numbers to only those persons deemed in good faith necessary to the prosecution of the lawsuit.10
Because the parties submitted competing protective orders acc ompanying their motions, the Magistrate Judge directed the parties to submit a si ngle, joint, proposed protective order in compliance with the September 10 order. 11 The parties submitted the joint protective order on November 4, 2013.12
Signal filed a Motion to Review Magistrate's Order on September 26, 2013 and that motion is presently before the Court. Signal's motion only seeks review of the Magistrate Judge's order to the extent it prevented discovery regardingimmigration history and status,
7R. Doc. 237. 8Id., pp. 11-12. 9Id., p. 13. 10Id. p. 15. The Magistrate Judge further stated it would not order parties to serve supoenas on non-parties if parties wished to speak to the non-parties. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge's order stated the parties may request Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in any format they choose, and the protective order in David v. Signal (08-1220) requiring ESI in non-native format was not applicable to this case. (Doc. 1352 in David). 11Id., p. 15. 12R. Doc. 284. The temporary government shut down during October 2013 prevented the parties from submitting the joint proposed protective order until November 4, 2013. (See R. Doc. 260).
3

post-Signal employment, and tax returns.13 STANDARD OF REVIEW
Signal seeks review of the Magistrate Judge's ruling based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.2. If a paryt disagrees with a Magistrate Judge's ruling, the "district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR 72.2. As another section of this Court summarized:
Under this standard, factual findings are reviewed for c lear error, which is present when the reviewing court uponexamination of the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviciton that a mistake has been committed. Conclusions of law should be overturned when the magistrate fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules ofprocedure. For issues that are committed by law to a judge's disc retion, suc h as the resolution of discovery disputes, the magi strate's rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kiln Underwriting Ltd. v. Jesuit High Sch. of New Orleans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86286 (E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)(Berrigan, J)(citations and quotation marks omitted).
LAW AND ANALYSIS Signal argues the Magistrate Judge committed legal error in preventing the discovery of the employees' private immigration and post-Signal information because the Magistrate Judge did not fully consider Signal's Fifth Amendment right to cross examine witnesses. Signal argues the Magistrate Judge attributed "too little weight to Signal's right to cross examine for motive."14 Signal frames the Magistrate Judge's ruling as legal error and asks
13R. Doc. 252, p. 2. 14R. Doc. 252, p. 1.
4

this Court to overturn the Magistrate Judge's ruling.15 Having reviewed the record, the Magist rate Judge's order, and the parties'
memoranda, the Court does not find any lega l error. T he Magistrate Judge's order fully examined and balanced the relevance of the immigration information, the in terrorem effect on the employees, and Signal's right to cross-examine witnesses. The Magistrate Judge found the information to be irrelevant, and concluded thein terrorem effect caused by seeking the employees' immigration information outweighed Signal's interests in using the information to cross examine witnesses. Signal has not shown the Magistrate Judge "fail[ed] to apply or misappli e[d] relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Kiln Underwriting Ltd. v. JesuitHigh Sch. of New Orleans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86286 (E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2008)(citations and quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Magistrate Judge's ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.
After considering the arguments of the parties and the decision of the Magistrate Judge, in which he fully considered Signa l's right to cross examine witnesses, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order prohibiting the discovery of immigration status, history, proceedings, and opst-Signal employment and tax returns is AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _2_n_d day of December, 2013.

15R. Doc. 252, p. 11.

_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221)
SECTION "E"

Applies To: EEOC v. Signal (12-557) ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Entr y of Discovery Plan and Case Management

1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 11
Order filed by plaintiff, the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC").1 Defendant Signal Internationa l, LLC ("Signal") opposes the EEOC's motion. 2 PlaintiffsIntervenors filed a response in support of the EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order.3
Also before the Court is the parties' oral request for clarificati on of the Order and Reasons entered on August 19, 20134 in response to the EEOC's Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery.5
BACKGROUND On April 20, 2011, the EEOC brought suit against Signal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ee, t. seq. ("Title VII"), for discriminating against approximately 500 Indian national employees who worked and lived in Pscaagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas.The EEOC's claims are brought pursuant its authority under §§ 706 and 707 of Title VII o n behalf of a class of Indian employees. 6 The EEOC alleges Signal 1) created a hostile work environment for the Indian employees (in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)); 2) discriminated against and subjected the Indian employees to disparate terms and conditions of employment based upon their race
1R. Doc. 231. 2Signal filed its first opposition on September 10, 2013 (Doc. 240), but was granted leave to file an additional opposition. Signal's more comprehensive opposition was filed on September 17, 2013 (Doc. 242). 3R. Doc. 239. 4R. Doc. 228. 5R. Doc. 141. 6Although the EEOC brought suit on behalf of a class, the term "class" or "class members" is used to collectively describe the aggrieved individuals who the EEOC represents and does not implicate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 3 of 11
and national origin (in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U. S.C. § 2000e-2(a)); 3) unlawfully retaliated against two employees7 (in violation of § 704(a)of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-3(a)); and 4) engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting the employees to a
hostile work e nvironment and disparate te rms and conditions of employment based on their race and national origin.8
On February 3, 2012, the plaintiffs-intervne ors filed a class complaint in intervention against Signal.9 The intervenors alleged the same claims as the EEOC for 1) hostile work
environment; 2) discrimination and 3) retaliation, but did not allege a pattern or practice claim.10 On November 7, 2012, the plaintiffs-intervenors amended their complaint to add nine more intervenors.11
The EEOC moved to bifurcate the case for trial and discovery on July 20, 201122T. he plaintiffs-intervenors file d a memorandum in support of the EEOC's motion. 13 Signal opposed the EEOC's motion. 14Although Signal agreed bifurcation was ordinarily
7Sabulal Vijayan and Joseph Jacob Kadakkarappally's retaliation claims stem from certain events occurring on March 9, 2007.
8Although the EEOC originally filed suit on April 20, 2011 (Doc. 1), the EEOC was granted leave to file an amended complaint to change a citation to an incorrect statute on August 8, 2012 (Doc. 153).
9R. Doc. 45. The intervenors' motion to intervene was granted on January 24, 2012 (Doc. 44) while the case was pending in the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs-intervenors were originally comprised of three individual Indian employees.
10R. Doc. 45. 11R. Doc. 179. Although the intervenors originally alleged a class complaint, they did not move for class certification within 91 days as required by Local Rule 23.1(B), thereby waiving their right for class certification. The plaintiffs-intervenors' amended complaint did not allege class claims but only claims on behalf of the twelve named employees. 12R. Doc. 141. 13R. Doc. 149. 14R. Doc. 150.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 4 of 11
appropriate for pattern and practice claims, it disagreed with the manner in which the EEOC proposed to bifurcate the case.
The Court granted the EEOC's Motion to bifurcate in part. 15 The Court ordered liability and injunctive relief under the EEO C's pattern and practice claim for disparate treatment to be litigated in Phase I under the framework the United States Supreme Court delineated in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States , 431 U.S. 324 (1997).16 The Court directed all remaining claimsasserted by the EEOC and the plaintiffsintervenors to be tried in Phase II, includ ing Signal's liability for punitiv e dam ages.17 Because the pleadings revealed that the EEOC and Signal disagreed over the burdens of proof, recoverable damages, and the interpretationof § 706 and § 707 of Title VII, the Court further ordered the parties to submit proposed case management orders to identify the exact claims to be tried in eachphase, the statutory basis foreach claim, the burden of proof to be applied to each cla im, and whether or not a pattern or practice finding in Phase I would have any effect in Phase II18. The parties submitted their proposed case management orders and they are now before the Court.
A status conference was held on November 8, 2013 at which the parties discussed their proposed discovery plansand case management orders1.9 The parties orally requested
15R. Doc. 228. 16R. Doc. 228, p. 3. 17R. Doc. 228, p. 4. 18R. Doc. 228, p. 6. 19R. Doc. 300.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 5 of 11
clarification of the Court's prior orde2r0 specifically with respect to whether the EEOC could bring its Phase I pattern or practice claim under both §§ 706 and 707, whether or not Phase I would be tried by a jury, what remedies would be available for the EEOC's pattern or practice claim in Phase I, and what, if any, effect a Phase I finding of a pattern or practice of discrimination would have in Phase II. The parties were afforded an additional opportunity to express their concerns by submitting letters to the Court.21
LAW AND ANALYSIS After considering the issuesraised in the parties' proposed discovery plans and case management orders, the Court grants the EEOC's Motion for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order. The Court will entear separate case management order for Phase I.22 The Court also grants the parties' oral request for clarification of its August 19, 2013 Order23 and Reasons bifurcating the case, as set forth below. I. Phase I (A) EEOC's §§ 706 and 707 Pattern or Practice Claims The parties disagree as to whether the EEOC may bring itspattern or practice claim for disparate treatment under both §§ 706 and 707 of Title VII, and, if so, wheth er both claims may be tried in Phase I.
20R. Doc. 228. 21R. Doc. 300. Both the EEOC and Signal submitted letters with respect to whether or not Phase I would be tried by a jury. See Doc. 302, Doc. 303. Signal also submitted a letter regarding whether or not the EEOC could bring a pattern or practice claim under § 706. See Doc. 301. 22R. Doc. 317. 23R. Doc. 228.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 6 of 11
The EEOC alleges pattern or practice claimsin its complaint under §§ 706 and 707 and argues it may proceed under theTeamsters framework for both.24 All parties agree that
pattern and practi ce claims generally proceed under the framework delineated in
Teamsters. The Teamsters model begins with a "liability" stage, where "the EEOC must first
establish a prima facie case of pattern or practice by 'demonstrat[ ing] that unlawful
discrimination has been a regular procedure orpolicy followed by an employer or group of
employers.'" EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87127 (D. Colo. Aug. 8,
2011)(quoting Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 360). The burden thenshifts to the employer to rebut
the prima facie showing of pattern or practice by showing the EEOC's proof is "inaccurate
or insignificant." Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 360.
Signal contends the EEOC ca nnot pursue a pattern or practice claim under § 706
using theTeamsters model because only claims under § 707 may proceed usinTgeamsters.
Signal rel ies upon the decis ion in EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC , where the
Southern District of Texasoutlined the treatment of pattern or practice claims under §§ 706
and 707 among district courts:
"Notwithstanding [the differences be tween § 706 and § 707] , court s have blurred the line between class-wide claims brought pursuant to § 706 a nd pattern-or-practice claims brought pursuant to § 707." EEOC v. Scolari Warehouse Mkts., Inc. , 488 F . Supp. 2d 1117, 1143 (D. Nev. 2007)(citing General Telephone v. EEOC , 446 U.S. 318, 328 n.12 (19 80); EEOC v. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc., 885 F.2d 575, 577 (9th Cir. 1989); EEOC v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc ., No. 98 C 1601, 1999 U.S. Dist. LE XIS 11226, 1999 WL 528200, at *1 (N.D. Ill1.999)). Some courts have determined that "the EEOC may bring suit alleging a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination under section 706 or section 707, but if the suit arises from a charge filed pursuant to section 706, then the EEOC must meet the prerequisites of section 706 bef ore filing suit." EEOC v. Int'l Profit Associates, Inc., No. 01 C 4427, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19070, 2007 WL
24R. Doc. 231. The EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 7 of 11
844555, at *9 (N.D. Ill. March 16, 2007). For example, inScolari, the District Court of Nevada determined that pattern-or-practice claims could be brought pursuant to § 706, even though doing so, "when Congress specifically created another avenue to bring such claims[,] creates an apparent redundacny in the law that troubles the Court." Scolari Warehouse Mkts., Inc., 488 F.Supp.2d at 1144. The court based its de cision on several factors. First, the court observed that there were several in tersections between § 706 and § 707, including the fact that § 707(e) incorporates the procedural requirements of § 706. Id. Second, as the court note d, T itle VII has long been construed liberally in favor of complainants. Id. at 1145. The court expressed concern that "allowing punitive and compensatory damages for class-wide claims and not for pattern-or-practice claims, when both are equally severe in magnitude, would disrupt Title VII's purpose to eradicate wid espread discrimination and to make persons whole again." Id. (citing Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody , 422 U.S. 405, 417-18, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975)). Third, the court found that §706 and § 707 claims are similar in that "the interest in bringing a class action and/or a pattern-or-practice claim is the same: to prevent against unlawfulemployment practices affecting a group of individuals with related claims." Id. (citing Harriss v. Pan Am. Wo rld Airways, Inc., 74 F.R.D. 24, 41-42 (N.D. Cal. 1977);Cherosky v. Henderson, 330 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2003)). The court concluded that "[g]iven the similar nature of such claims and the remedial purpose of Title VII," there was "little legal or prudential reason to foreclose the EEOC from bringing a pattern-or-practice claim pursuant to §§ 706 and 707 for the purpose of seeking punitive and compensatory damages." Id.
Other courts have reached the contrary conclusion. Disagreeing with Scolari, the District Court for the Eastern Distrcit of Michigan insisted "that allowing punitive and compensatory damages in § 706, but not § 707, actions may 'disrupt Title VII's purpose' is ... irre levant— Congress apparently did not think so, as the 1992 amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a only extended punitive and compensatory damages to § 706 actions, not § 707 actions ." Serrano v. Cintas Corp ., 711 F. Supp .2d 782, 793 (E.D. Mich. 2010)(emphasis in original). That courtwent on to find that the EEOC could not proceed solely under § 706, but reserved its "judgment on the propriety of allowing the EEOC to 'blur the lines.'.. between the two statutory sections" in cases where the E EOC pursued both § 706 and § 707 actions simultaneously. Id. at 794. Similarly, the Northern District of Iowa opined that, "[l]ike § 706, § 707 gra nts the EEOC the right to seek equitable relief against employers found to have intentionally engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful employment discriminatio n." EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 611 F.Supp.2d 918, 930 (N.D. Iowa 2009)(citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a)). "Unlike § 706, however, the EEOC is not authorized to seek compensatory or punitive damages unde r § 707; the relevant portion of 42 U.S.C. § 1981a only authorized recovery of compensa tory and punitive
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 8 of 11
damages '[i]n an action brought by a complaining party under [§ 706].'" Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)). The CRST Van Expedited court accused the EEOC of "attempting to have its cake and eat it too" by trying "to avail itself of the Teamsters burden-shifting framework yet still seek compensatory and punitive damages under § 706." Id. at 934. "Complicating matters further," that court observed, "it is important to remember that the Supreme Court designed theTeamsters burden-shifting framework with only equitable relief in mind." Id. (citingJenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.4 (8th Cir. 1997)).
EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 884 F. Supp. 2d 499, 519-20 (S.D. Tex. 2012). After considering the different approaches, the trial court in EEOC v. Bass Pro
Outdoor World, LLC held the EEOC could not bring a pattern or practice claim under § 706. Id. at 520. However, the decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan i n Serrano v. C intas, relied upon by the trial court in Bass Pro , was later overturned by the Sixth Circuit. See Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 187 L. Ed. 2d 254 (U.S. 2103). The Sixth Circuit inSerrano held theEEOC may pursue a pattern or practice claim under the Teamsters framework pursuant to its § 706 authority. Id. at 896. The Sixth Circuit noted that a reading of § 706 to allow Teamsterslike pattern or practice claims migh t create some overlap with § 707. Id. at 895-96. Ultimately, however, the Sixth Circuit found the two statutes were not "superfluous" even if Teamsters applies to § 706 claims. Id. at 896. The Sixth Circuit is the only circuit court to rule on this issue.
Having considered the arguments of the pa rties and examined the case law, this Court finds the Sixth Circuit decision in Serrano v. Cintas persuasive and clarifies i ts August 19, 2013 Order and Reasons by speciyf ing that the EEOC may bring its pattern and practice claims under both §§ 706 and 707 using the Teamsters framework and that both
8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 9 of 11
claims will be tried in Phase I. The de cisions cited by the district court in Bass Pro were decided before the Sixth Circuit's ruling inSerrano. Furthermore, at least one other district court has followed Serrano and similarly found the EEOC has authority to bring a pattern or practice claim under §706. See e.g. EEOC v. Pitre, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. N.M. 2012) (finding a pattern or practice claim for sexual harassment could be brought under § 706).25
(B) Jury Trial The Court also clarifies its August 19, 2013Order and Reasons by specifying that all the EEOC's Phase I claims under §§ 706 and 707 will be tried by a jur2y6.The EEOC's § 706 claim seeks compensatory and puni tive dama ges recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Section 1981a(c) expressly grants both plaintiff and defendant the right to demand a jury trial when compensatory and punitive damages are sought in intentional discrimination claims under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(c). Although only prospective injunctive relief is available at the successful conclusion of Phase I, the trier of fact will determine factual issues that necessarily bear upon the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in Phase II. "Once the right to a jury trial attaches to a claim ... it extends to all factual issues necessary to resolving that claim."Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 423 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510-11 (1959)).
25Only one district court has appeared to limit the EEOC's authority to bring a pattern or practice claim to § 707 after the Sixth Circuit holding in Serrano. See EEOC v. JBS USA LLC, in which the District Court of Nebraska found the EEOC could not pursue a § 706 claim under the Teamsters framework. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167117 (D. Neb. November 26, 2012). However, this Court does not find that decision persuasive.
26Signal requested a jury in its answer to the EEOC's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 199).
9

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 10 of 11
II. Phase II
(A) Effect of Presumption from Phase I
If the EEOC is successful at the Phase I "liability" trial,Phase II will proceed with the
individual employees' entitlem ent to r elief for the proven discriminatory patterns or
practices. Following Teamsters, the employees will enjoy an inference that "any particular
employment decision, during the period in wh ich the discriminatory policy was in force,
was made pursuant o f that policy." Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 362. The Second Circuit in
Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R.explained the bifurcation model and the effects
of the presumption:
The effect of the presumption from the alibility stage is to substantially lessen each cla ss me mber's evid entiary burden relative to that which would be required if the employee were proceed ing separately with an individual disparate treatment claim under theMcDonnell Douglas framework. Rather than having to make out a prima faciecase of discrimination and prove that the employer's asserted business justification is merely a pretext for discrimination, a class member at the remedial stage of a pattern or practice claim need only show that he or shesuffered an adverse employment decision and therefore was a potential victim of the proved [class-wide] discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the individual [was subjected to theadverse employment decision] for lawful reasons. If the employer is unable toestablish a lawful reason for an adverse employment action, the employee is en titled to individua lized equitable relief, which may include back pay and front pay. Class members who seek compensatory damages in addition to individualized equitable relief must then prove that the discrimination caused them emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental a nguish, loss of enjoyment of life, [or] other nonpecuniary losses.
Robinson, 267 F.3d 147, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2001)(niternal quotations and citations omitted).
The framework established inRobinson was also later adopted inEEOC v. Sterling
Jewelers, Inc. 788 F. Supp. 2d 83 (W.D. N.Y. 2011). After a jury determines whether Signal
engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in Phase I, Phase II will address issues
10

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 316 Filed 12/04/13 Page 11 of 11 concerning each individual employees' claim for relief, including whether Signal can meet its burden of rebuttal as to e ach c lass memb er, and if not, the remedies to which each individual employee is entitled, including back pa y, front pay, and compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 92.
If the EEOC fails to prove a pattern or practice in Phase I, individuals may proceed under the McDonnell Douglas model to prove each individual employee's entitlement to damages based upon alleged discrimination, without the benefit of any presumption.
So Ordered this _4_th_ day of December, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11

 
 Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221)
SECTION "E"

Applies To: EEOC v. Signal (12-557) ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiffs-intervenors' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order

1

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 2 of 9
Granting Signal's Motion for Partial Dismissal. 1 Defendant Signal Inte rnational, LLC ("Signal") opposes plaintiffs-intervenors' motion.2 Plaintiffs-intervenors also filed a reply in response to Signal's opposition.3
BACKGROUND On April 20, 2011, the Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" ) brought suit against Signal under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), for discriminating against approximately 500 Indian national employees who worked and lived in Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas.4 The EEOC's claims are brought pursuant its authority under §§ 706 and 707 of Title VII on behalf of a class of the Indian employees. 5 On March 30, 2012, Signal filed a third party demand against Global Resources, Inc, a Mi ssissippi corporation ru n by Michael Pol, a Mississippi citizen, and Scottsdale Insurance Company.6 On February 3, 2012 the plaintiffs-intervenors, Indian nationals who are H-2B
1R. Doc. 273. 2R. Doc. 295. 3R. Doc. 308. 4The EEOC alleges Signal 1) created a hostile work environment for the Indian employees (in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)); 2) discriminated against and subjected the Indian employees to disparate terms and conditions of employment based upon their race and national origin (in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)); 3) unlawfully retaliated against two employees (in violation of § 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)); and 4) engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting the employees to a hostile work environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment based on their race and national origin. See R. Doc. 153. 5Although the EEOC brought suit on behalf of a class, the term "class" or "class members" is used to collectively describe the aggrieved individuals who the EEOC represents and does not implicate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 6R. Doc. 90. The third party demand against Scottsdale Insurance Company was later dismissed voluntarily. (See R. Doc. 137).
2

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 3 of 9
workers, filed a class complaint in intervention against Signal. 7 The intervenors alleged claims against Signal for 1) hostile work envrionment; 2) discrimination and 3) retaliation8. On Nove mber 7, 2012, the plaintiffs-inter venors amended their complaint to add nine additional intervenors.9
The plaintiffs-intervenors sought damages for Signal's discrimination, including the amount of the recruitment fees they paid to Michael Pol, d/b/a Global Resources, Inc. ("Pol"), Malvern C. Burnett d/b/a Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC ("Burnett")10, and Sachin D ewan d/b/a Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ("Dewan") 11 (Pol, Burnett, and Dewan collectively referred to as the"Recruiters").12 The plaintiffs-intervenors claim Signal unlawfully discriminated against them and other Indian H-2B workers on the basis of race and national origin by requiring only the Indian H-2B workers to be hi red through the Recruiters who charged expensive, non-refundable fees1.3 The plaintiffs-intervenors argue they are entitled to recover the recruitment fees paid to the Recruiters from Signal under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, which allows the recoveyrof compensatory damages when a complaining
7R. Doc. 45. The intervenors' motion to intervene was granted on January 23, 2012 (R. Doc. 44) while the case was pending in the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs-intervenors were originally comprised of three individual Indian employees.
8R. Doc. 45. 9R. Doc. 179. Although the intervenors originally alleged a class complaint, they did not move for class certification within 91 days as required by Local Rule 23.1(B), thereby waiving their right for class certification. The plaintiffs-intervenors amended complaint did not allege class claims but only claims on behalf of the twelve named employees. 10Malvern C. Burnett, the sole member of the LLC, is a Louisiana citizen. 11Sachin Dewan is a citizen of India. Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is an entity formed under the laws of India. 12See R. Doc. 179, pp. 16-17, 19. 13See R. Doc. 179, pp. 7-8.
3

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 4 of 9
party brings an action under § 706 against a respondent who engaged in discrimination prohibited under § 703.14
On November 21, 2012, Signal movde under Rule 12(b)(6) for partial dismissal of the plaintiffs-intervenors' discrimination claim insofar as it seeks recovery of the recruitment fees. Signal argues the recruitment fees are not recoverable because (1) 42 § U.S.C. 1981a does not provide judicial relief i n the form of recovery of the recruitment fees; 15 (2) the plaintiffs-intervenors failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to the recruitment fees; and (3) the recruitment fee claim arises out of events occurring abroad and Title VII does not apply extraterritorially.16
The Court granted Signal's moti on for partial dismissal on September 26, 2013. 17 Treating Signal's motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the Court found the basis for plaintiffs-intervenors discrimination claim against Signal for recruitment fees arose before they were employees as defined by Title VII because they were aliens outside the United States when they incurred the fees.18 The Court declined to apply Title VII extrat erritorially and dismissed the plaintiffs-
14R. Doc. 188. 15Signal argued 42 U.S.C. §1981a did not provide recovery because subsection 1981a(b)(3), which describes the cap on recovery, lists "future pecuniary losses" and not "past pecuniary losses" as compensatory damages. Signal urged the omission in the statute showed that past pecuniary losses are not recoverable. 16R. Doc. 184. 17R. Doc. 251. 18R. Doc. 251, p. 10.
4

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 5 of 9
intervenors' discrimination claim for recruitment fees against Signal.19 The plaintiffs-intervenors move for recon sideration of the Court's September 26,
2013 order granting Signal's motion for partial dismissal, arguing the Court committed an error of law.20 The plaintiffs-intervenors assert the Court erred by finding Title VII does not protect employees from discrimination during the hiring process (and before work tasks begin).21 The plaintiffs-intervenors also argue that extraterritorial application of Title VII is not necessary because the plaintiffs-intervenors were at all times employed in the United States.22
LEGAL STANDARD A timely filed motion to reco nsider an interlocutory order is evaluated under the same standard as a motion to alter or amen d a final judgment brought pursua nt to Rule 59(e) of the Fe deral Rule s of Civil Procedure. See, e.g. Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *3-4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) ("The general practice of this court has been to evalua te motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards that governRule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.")23
19R. Doc. 251, p. 9. The Court did not reach the issue of whether or not the plaintiffs-intervenors failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Court noted Signal attached exhibits to support its arguments surrounding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Because the Court did not consider those exhibits, it did not covert Signal's motion to a motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Court did not consider Signal's argument that § 1981a only applies to future pecuniary losses.
20R. Doc. 273. 21R. Doc. 273, pp. 4-7. 22R. Doc. 273, pp. 7-19. 23A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A motion to reconsider filed outside this 28-day window is evaluated under the standards governing a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b). Stangel v. United States 68 F.3d 857,
5

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 6 of 9
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) calls into question the correctness of a judgment.In Re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 578 (5th Cir. 2002). "A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must pr esent newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise a rguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued." Schiller v. Physicians Resourc e Group Inc. , 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5 th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted). In deciding motions under Rule 59(e), the Court considers the following:
(1) whether the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) whether the movant presents new evidence; (3) whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and (4) whether the motion is justified by anintervening change in the controlling law.
Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. "A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction." SPE FO Holdings, LLC v. Retif Oil & Fuel, LLC , No. 07-3779, 2008 WL 3285907, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2008). "A district court has considerable discretion to grant or deny a motoin for new trial under Rule 59."Kelly v. Bayou Fleet, Inc,. No. 06-6871, 2007 WL 3275200, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2007).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs-intervenors first argue the Court committed manifest legal error because
859 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the plaintiffs-intervenors motion was timely filed within the 28-day window, it is properly treated as a Rule 59(e) motion.
6

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 7 of 9
"[i]mplicit in the Court's decision is the ho lding that Title VI I does not apply to the recruitment and hiring process." 24 Specifically, plaintiffs-intervenors take issue with a single sentence of this Courts' order, which stated, "[t]he Intervenors cannot recover under Title VII for their Recruitment Claim b ecause of when the claims arose, not where the [plaintiffs-intervenors] eventually worked." 25 Plaintiffs-interveno rs argue the Court committed legal error because this sentence creates a bright line rule preventing Title VII from applying to all activities occurring during the hiring process.
The plaintiffs-intervenors' reading of the Court's order is overly broad. The Court did not rule that there may never be recovery under Title VII for actions occurring during the hiring process. When Title VII is applicable , it clearly prohibit s unlawful employment practices during the hiring process.26 Instead, the Court highlighted when the claim for the recruitment fees arose (while the plaintiffs-ni tervenors, non-U.S. citizens, were abroad) to demonstrate why applying the statute in this case would have required an extraterritorial application of Title VII.
Second, the plaintiffs-intervenors argue the Court erred as a matter of law in its September 26, 2013 Order by reading "Title VIIin a radical way to judicially legislate a safe
24R. Doc. 273-1, p. 3. 25R. Doc. 251, p. 8 (emphasis in original). 26 Title VII covers "applicants for employment" and makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate with respect to conditions of employment. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2) ("Section 703")("It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin; or to limit, segregate, or (2) classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.")
7

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 8 of 9
harbor from Title VII for any discrimination with a foreign compo nent."27 Again, the
plaintiffs-intervenors have misrepresented the Court's ruling, which is limited to the facts
of this case and creates no safe harbor for discrimination with a foreign component.
It is important to remember that the dismissed claim is a Title VII discrimination
claim for recruitment fees in curred by n on-U.S. citizens, while they were outside this
country, and paid to the non-defendant Recruitersrather than to the defendant Signal. The
plaintiffs-intervenors have not presented any new evidence or pointed to any intervening
change in controlling law. Neither have they cited to any case squarely on point reaching
a conclusion different from this Court. The pl aintiff-intervenors have failed to clearly
establish a manifest error of law or to show taht granting the motion is necessary to prevent
manifest injustice. The requirements of Rule 59(e) have not been met a nd the Court
declines to reconsider its Order granting Signal's Motion for Partial Dismissal.28
27Doc. 273-1, p. 4.
28The Court does note that, even if exterritorial application of Title VII is not required, it is doubtful that the allegations of the complaint in intervention for recovery of recruitment fees from Signal would state a claim for relief that is plausible and capable of surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly. 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 919 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 139 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). To make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff to show he was (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the position held; (3) subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) treated differently from others similarly situated. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). In the Fifth Circuit, an "adverse employment action for Title VII discrimination claims ... 'include[s] only ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, or compensating." McCoy v. City of Shreveport 492 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2007), quoting Green v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 284 F.3d 642, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). "Title VII was only designed to address 'ultimate employment decisions, not to address every decision made by employers that arguably might have some tangential effect upon those ultimate decisions." Burger v. Central Apartment Mgmt., Inc., 168 F.3d 875, 878 (5th Cir. 1999), quoting Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932, 139 L. Ed. 2d 260, 118 S. Ct. 336 (1997). To state an actionable discrimination claim under Title VII, the plaintiffs-intervenors' claim for recruitment fees must be based on a "tangible employment action [that] constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits." Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 764 118 S. Ct. 2257, 141 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1998)(emphasis added). The enormous debts at the start of their employment, mentioned by the plaintiffs-intervenors in briefs in support of their motion to reconsider (Doc. 273, p. 12), are not a significant change in their employment status with Signal. Signal's use of the Recruiters is not an
8

Case 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK Document 336 Filed 01/15/14 Page 9 of 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs-intervenors' motion to reconsider be and hereby is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1_5_t_h day of January, 2014.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
"adverse employment action" with respect to the plaintiffs-intervenors' discrimination claim for recruitment fees under Fifth Circuit precedent. See Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 282 (5th Cir. 2004)("[A]n employment action that 'does not affect job duties, compensation, or benefits is not an adverse employment action.'")(quoting Banks v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 320 F.3d 570, 575 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 817, 124 S. Ct. 82, 157 L. Ed. 2d 34 (2003)).
9

 
 CaseC2a:1s2e-cMvD-0L05N5o7.-2S5M5-4DEDKocuDmoceunmt 7e6nt 4F5il1ed F0i8le/1d20/184/12P/1a4geP1aogfe31 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC HUMAN TRAFFICKING LITIGATION

MDL No. 2554

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendants Signal International, LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. (collectively, Signal) move for centralization of this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana. This litigation currently consists of seven actions pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana and five actions pending in the Eastern District of Texas, as listed on Schedule A. These actions involve allegations that roughly 590 Indian welders and piperfitters were lured to work for Signal through the fraudulent promise of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States, and that they subsequently were subjected to forced labor and other abuses at Signal’s facilities in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas.
Defendants Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC, and the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC, support the motion to centralize. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and some 190-plus individual plaintiffs—together comprising all the plaintiffs in the twelve actions on the motion—oppose centralization.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we will deny plaintiffs’ motion. Although these actions share some factual questions arising out of the alleged fraudulent scheme to traffick plaintiffs into the United States to work at Signal’s facilities and the terms and conditions of employment after they were hired by Signal, we are not persuaded that Section 1407 centralization is necessary either to assure the convenience of the parties and witnesses or for the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. As both of the underlying courts have recognized, each individual plaintiff must prove how he was recruited, the abuse he allegedly suffered while working for Signal, and the damages caused to him by the alleged fraudulent scheme and discriminatory work conditions. These individualized facts very well may predominate over the common factual issues alleged by plaintiffs.
More significantly, all of the actions are progressing rapidly towards trial. Jury trial of the Mississippi plaintiffs’ claims in the first-filed David action in the Eastern District of Louisiana is scheduled for January of 2015. Fact discovery in the first two actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas will close in less than two months, and trials in those actions are also set for early- to mid-

* Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter.

CaseC2a:1s2e-cMvD-0L05N5o7.-2S5M5-4DEDKocuDmoceunmt 7e6nt 4F5il1ed F0i8le/1d20/184/12P/1a4geP2aogfe32 of 3

-2-
2015. Much, if not all, of the “common” factual discovery undoubtedly has been completed already, as more than a hundred days’ worth of depositions have been conducted.
Furthermore, there has been substantialinter-district and intra-district coordination. All seven of the Louisiana actions have been assigned to Judge Susie Morgan, who has ordered five of the actions consolidated (all save the action by the EEOC) and that discovery of all the Louisiana actions be conducted in a coordinated fashion so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. Similarly, the Texas actions have been referred to the same magistrate judge. Consent orders have been entered in those actions allowing the Texas plaintiffs full access to the written discovery, document discovery, and depositions from the Louisiana actions. Thus, “informal cooperation among the involved attorneys and coordination between the involved courts seems preferable to formal centralization.” See In re Adderall XR (Amphetamine/Dextroamphetamine) Mktg., Sales Practices &Antitrust Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2013). This is particularly so where the main effect of centralization would not be to enhance convenience and efficiency, but to delay the progress of these actions, which are swiftly moving towards trial. See In re DietGoal Innovations, LLC (‘561) Patent Litig., MDL No. 2507, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2014 WL 709762, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 19, 2014) (denying centralization where it would delay significantly advanced actions).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these actions is denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________ John G. Heyburn II Chairman

Marjorie O. Rendell Lewis A. Kaplan R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer Sarah S. Vance

CaseC2a:1s2e-cMvD-0L05N5o7.-2S5M5-4DEDKocuDmoceunmt 7e6nt 4F5il1ed F0i8le/1d20/184/12P/1a4geP3aogfe33 of 3

IN RE: SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC HUMAN TRAFFICKING LITIGATION

MDL No. 2554

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Louisiana
DAVID, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:08–01220 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. SIGNAL
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, C.A. No. 2:12–00557 ACHARI, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:13–06218 CHAKKIYATTIL, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:13–06219 KRISHNAKUTTY, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:13–06220 DEVASSY, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:13–06221 SINGH, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14–00732
Eastern District of Texas
SAMUEL, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:13-00323 JOSEPH, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:13-00324 MEGANATHAN, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:13-00497 KAMBALA, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:13-00498 MARIMUTHU, ET AL. v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:13-00499

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (08-1220); EEOC v. Signal (12-557); Achari v. Signal (13-6218, 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appe al or Alternatively to Stay P ending Application for Mandamus Relie f filed by Defendants Signal
1

International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., and Signal Inter national Texas, G.P.

(collectively "Signal") .1 Defendants Malvern Burnett, the Law Offices of Malver

n

Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigr ation Law Center, L.L.C. (the "Burnett

Defendants") have filed a similar Motion.2 The question presented is whether the Court

should certify for int erlocutory appeal its orders prohibiting th e discovery of certain

post-Signal informatio n, including immigrat ion status. For the fo llowing reasons, the

Court finds that the criteria for interlocutory appeal are not present and that a

discretionary stay pe nding the outcome of a petition for mandamus relief is not

warranted. The Motions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND3

A protective order in the above-caption ed matters prohibits Signal from

discovering, inter alia , the current immigration status of any plaintiff, the curren t

address or place of res idence of any plainti ff, and the employers or potential employers

of any plaintiff post-termination of employment with Signal. 4 Moving Defendants argue

the protective order u nduly restricts their ability to discover impeachment evidence. 5

The Court has rejected this argument on multiple occasions, finding t

hat the in

terrorem e ffect of producing the requested information outweighs Signal's interest in

unbridled discovery. Recognizing the futi lity of beating a dead hor se, Moving

Defendants now ask the Court to certify its orders upholding the protective order for

1 R. Doc. 1776 in the David Case, R. Doc. 472 in the EEOC Case, and R. Doc. 351 in the Achari Cases. 2 R. Doc. 1808 in the David Case a nd R. Doc. 3 84 in the Achari Cases. The Bur nett Defenda nts incorporate by reference the arguments set forth in Signal's motion. 3 The facts of the related cases have been detailed ad nauseum in previous orders. Familiarity is assumed. 4 R. Docs. 367 and 4 76 in the David Case, R. D oc. 285 in the EEOC Case, and R. Doc. 307 in the Achari Cases. 5 The Burnett Defenda nts also argue the protect ive order preclu des them fro m assessing the economic harm, if any, suffered by the plaintiffs.
2

interlocutory appeal. In the alternative, Moving Defendants request a discretionary stay of the above-captioned matters while they petition the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus.
LEGAL STANDARD An interlocutory appeal from a n on-final order in a civil case is permissible when (1) the order involves "a controlling question of law," (2) there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on the question pres ented, and (3) an immediate ap peal would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 6 The district court cannot certify an order for interlocutory appe al unless all three cr iteria are present. 7 In determining whether certification is appropriate, the Court is min dful that interlocutory appeal is "exceptional " and "does not lie simply to determine t he correct ness of a judgment."8
LAW AND ANALYSIS The partie s spill much ink arguing wh ether the protective or der involves a controlling question of law on which there ex ists a substantial ground for difference of opinion. The Court need not dec ide these issues today. For the reasons explained more fully below, certificat ion is not warranted because an immediate appeal would hinder— rather than hasten—the ultimate termination of the related cases. An immediate appeal materially advances the termination of litigation if it would eliminate t he need for trial, simplify the i ssues for trial, or reduce the burden of
6 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 7 See A paricio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2 d 110 9, 1 110 n.2 (5 th Cir. 1981) ( "Section 12 92(b) s ets ou t three criteria all of which must be m et before the district court may properly certify an interlocutory order for appeal.") (emphasis added). 8 Clark-Dietz & Assocs.-Eng'rs, Inc. v. Basic Constr. Co., 702 F.2d 67, 68—69 (5th Cir. 1983).
3

discovery.9 Certification of the protective order would accomplish none

of these

objectives.10 As a non-dispositive order, the revers al or affirmance of a discovery order

would seldom (if ever) eliminate the need for trial. Nor would a decision from the Fifth

Circuit simplify the issues for trial or redu ce the burden of dis covery. If anything,

vacature of the protective order would make discovery even more onerous and unwieldy.

Rather than expediting a final disposition, an interlocutory appeal would actually

delay resolution of the related cases. The David Case is set for trial in less than three

months. Even if the Fifth Circuit chose to hear the interlocutory appeal, the parties

could not realistically expect a de cision for at least six months. 11 Regardless of the Fifth

Circuit's ruling, the David Case would the n have to be returned to the Court's jur y

docket, resulting in an addition al lengthy de lay. Moreover, an extensive delay in the

David Case would likely produce a ripple effect of con tinuances in the EEOC Case and

the Achari Cases. A nd once the David Case and the related cases are finally tried,

appealable issues will almost undoubtedly still exist, 12 which co uld lead to another

round of appeals and remands.13

9 B&B Advisory Servs., LLC v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., No. Civ. A. 02-2695, 2003 WL 22326511, a t *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 9, 2003); see also Panda Energy Int'l, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins., Nos. 3:11–CV–003–K, 3:10–CV–2541–K, No. 09–30453 (SGJ), and No. 09–30453 (SGJ), 2011 WL 610016, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2011) ("A n appeal materially adva nces the termination of liti gation wh en it accelerates or simplifies trial proceedings."). 10 Courts i n the Fifth C ircuit ha ve recogniz ed that a dis covery order is s eldom appropriate for interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., In re Tullius, No. EP-11-mc-365-KC., 2011 WL 50 06673, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 20 , 20 11) ( "District courts in th e Fifth Circui t are hesi tant to gran t l eave to appeal interlocutory orders relating to discovery."); Decena v. Am. Int'l Cos. (AIG), No. 11-1574, 2012 WL 1640455, at *2 (E.D. La. May 9, 2o12) ("As several courts have recognized, pretrial discovery orders will seldom meet the requirements for interlocutory appeal."). 11 As the David Plaintiffs note in their opposition memorandum, the average time for dispo sition in the Fifth Circuit is 9.3 months. See R. Doc. 1811-3 at p. 13. 12 The related cases present many issues of first impression, which increases the likelihood of appeal. 13 Such piec emeal appeals are disfavored. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. C arpenter, 558 U .S. 100, 106 (2009) ( "Permitting pie cemeal, preju dgment appeal s . . . under mines ' efficient ju dicial ad ministration' and encroaches upon the prerogativ es of distri ct court judges, who play a 'special role' in ma naging ongoing li tigation.) (quo ting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ris jord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981)); ClarkDietz, 702 F.2d at 69 ("The basic rule of appellate jurisdiction restricts review to final judgments, avoiding the delay and extra effort of piecemeal appeals.").
4

Having declined to certify the protective order for interlocutory appeal, the Court
now considers the alternative r elief reques ted by Moving Defendants—a stay pending
resolution of an as-of-yet-filed p etition for mandamus relief in the Fifth Circuit. There
is no automatic stay of district proceeding s while a petition for writ of mandamus is pending.14 Accordingl y, any such stay is i mposed under the dis trict court' s genera l discretionary authority.15
A district court has inherent authority to manage its docket, which includes the power to stay proceedings. 16 The moving par ty bears a " heavy burden" to dem onstrate that a stay is appropriate. 17 "Where a d iscretionary stay is proposed, something close to genuine necessity should be the mother of its invocation."18
For largely the reason s set forth above, Signal has failed to mak e the necessary
showing. The hardship and in convenience th at would result fro m a stay substantially outweighs any benefit,19 especially in light of the fact th at mandamus relief is unlikely to be granted.20 Accordingly, the Court will not issue a stay.
CONCLUSION
Signal seeks to appeal an interlo cutory ruling, the resolution of which will not
materially advance the related cases to fina l judgment. Accordin gly, the Court will not
certify the ruling for interlocutory appeal. Th e Court also finds that Signal has failed to
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances warrant a discretionary stay.
14 Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1416 (5th Cir. 1995). 15 See id. 16 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 17 Costal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co., 761 F.2d 195, 203 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985) 18 Id. 19 See L andis, 299 U. S. at 254 (instruc ting lower co urts to "wei gh competi ng i nterests an d mainta in an even balance" in deciding whether to issue a stay). 20 See In re LeBlanc, 559 F. App'x 389, 392—93 (5th Cir. 2014) (noting that writ of mandamus is rarely issued with respect to discovery orders).
5

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of October, 2014.

_________________

_______________

SUSIE

MORGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 35 EXHIBIT A
Litigation Settlement Trust Agreement
01:17822140.11

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 35
LITIGATION SETTLEMENT TRUST AGREEMENT'
This Litigation Settlement Trust Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of _ _, 2015, and effective as of the later of (a) the date on which all parties to this Agreement have executed this Agreement or (b) the Effective Date of the Plan, is entered into by Signal International, Inc., Signal Ship Repair, LLC, Signal International, LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, and Signal International Texas, L.P. (the "Debtors" or the "Settlors"), debtors and debtors-inpossession in the Bankruptcy Cases, as Settlors and by the Litigation Settlement Trustee and the Litigation Settlement Trust Advisory Committee ("Litigation Settlement TAC") identified on the signature page hereof.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on the Petition Date, each of the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code with the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Cases, which are captioned In re Signal International, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-11498 (MFW), are being jointly administered by the Bankruptcy Court; and
WHEREAS, as of the Petition Date, certain Debtors had been named as defendants in the H-2B Litigation; and
WHEREAS, on __, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order confirming the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Documents, provide, among things, for the creation of the Litigation Settlement Trust; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Plan, the Litigation Settlement Trust shall use the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets to pay Litigation Claims; and
WHEREAS, the Plan provides, among other things, for the complete treatment of all of the Debtors' liabilities and obligations with respect to Litigation Claims; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Plan, the Litigation Settlement Trust is intended to qualify as a "qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of section 1.468B-I et seq. of the Treasury Regulations promulgated under section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC"); and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Settlors, the TRSA and ERSA, the Litigation Settlement Trustee and the Litigation Settlement TAC that the Litigation Settlement Trust be administered, maintained, and operated at all times through mechanisms that provide reasonable assurance that the Litigation Settlement Trust will administer, process, settle, resolve, liquidate,
1 All capitalized tenns not otherwise defined herein shall have their respective meanings as set forth in the Debtors· Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code, as may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time (the "Plan") and such definitions are incorporated herein by reference. All capitalized tenns not defined herein or in the Plan, but defined in the Bankruptcy Code or Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Rules"), shall have the meanings given to them by the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules, and such definitions are incorporated herein by reference.
-1-
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 35
satisfy and pay, if applicable, aJI Litigation Claims pursuant to this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Bankruptcy Court has determined that the Litigation Settlement Trust and the Plan satisfy aJI the legal prerequisites for issuing the Channeling Injunction pursuant to section I05 of the Bankruptcy Code, and such Channeling Injunction has been entered in connection with the Confirmation Order.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, it is hereby agreed as
follows:
Section I AGREEMENT OF TRUST
1.1. Creation and Name. The Debtors, as Settlors, hereby create the Litigation Settlement Trust, which is the trust provided for and referred to in Article_VI of the Plan. The Litigation Settlement Trustee may transact the business and affairs of the Litigation Settlement Trust in the name of the Litigation Settlement Trust.
1.2. Pumose. The purpose of the Trust is to assume the Debtors' liabilities for Litigation Claims and to use the Litigation Settlement Trust's assets and income to pay holders of Litigation Claims in accordance with this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP and in such a way that similarly-situated holders of Litigation Claims are treated equitably and in a similar manner, subject to the terms of the Plan, this Agreement, and the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP.
1.3. Transfer of Assets. Pursuant to Section VI.G of the Plan, upon the Effective Date, the Purchaser and the Debtors, as applicable, will transfer, issue, or assign as appropriate and deliver to the Litigation Settlement Trust, the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets at the time and in the manner contemplated by the Plan Documents, in each case free and clear of any Claims, Liens, Equity Interests or other interests of any creditor, shareholder or other Entity, other than the continuing participation interest in favor of the Purchaser.
1.4. Acceptance of Assets and Assumption of Liabilities.
(a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Litigation Settlement Trust, the Litigation Settlement Trustee, on behalf of the Litigation Settlement Trust, hereby expressly accepts the transfer and assignment to the Litigation Settlement Trust of the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets in the time and manner contemplated by the Plan. The Litigation Settlement Trust shaJI receive the benefits of and shaJI be bound by the Plan Support Agreement as if it had been a party thereto at the time of execution of the Plan Support Agreement.
(b) In furtherance of the purposes of the Litigation Settlement Trust, the Litigation Settlement Trustee, on behalf of the Litigation Settlement Trust, expressly assumes liability for aJI Litigation Claims, subject to and as provided in the Plan and the Plan Documents. The Litigation Settlement Trust shaJI have aJI defenses, cross-claims,
-2-
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 35
offsets, and recoupments, as well as rights of indemnification, contribution, subrogation, and similar rights, regarding such claims that the Debtors had, have or would have had under the Plan, applicable law or under any agreement related thereto.
(c) No provision herein or in the Litigation Settlement TDP shall be construed to mandate distributions on any Litigation Claim or other actions that would contravene the Litigation Settlement Trust's compliance with the requirements of a "qualified settlement fund" within the meaning of section 1.4688-1 et seq. of the Treasury Regulations promulgated under section 4688 of the IRC.
(d) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed in any way to limit the scope, enforceability, or effectiveness of the Channeling Injunction issued in connection with the Plan or the Litigation Settlement Trust's assumption of all liability for Litigation Claims.
Section II POWERS AND TRUST ADMINISTRATION
2.1 Powers.
(a) The Litigation Settlement Trustee is and shall act as the fiduciary to the Litigation Settlement Trust in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the Plan, and shall have the power, on behalf of the Litigation Settlement Trust, to exercise all rights and fulfill all obligations of the Litigation Settlement Trust hereunder and under the Plan. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall, at all times, administer the Litigation Settlement Trust and the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets in accordance with the purposes set forth in Section 1.2, above. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall have the power to take any and all actions that, in the judgment of the Litigation Settlement Trustee, are necessary or proper to fulfill the purposes of the Litigation Settlement Trust, including, without limitation, each power expressly granted in this Section 2.1, any power reasonably incidental thereto, and any trust power now or hereafter permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware.
(b) Except as required by applicable law or otherwise specified herein, the Litigation Settlement Trustee need not obtain the order or approval of any court in the exercise of any power or discretion conferred on the Litigation Settlement Trustee hereunder.
(c) Without limiting the generality of Section 2.l(a), above, and except as limited below, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall have the power to:
(i) receive and hold legal title to the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets;
(ii) invest the monies held from time to time by the Litigation Settlement Trust;
-3-
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 5 of 35

NY\7379172.9

(iii) pay Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses, subject to Section 3.3, below, including, but not limited to:
(A) reasonable compensation to employees, and legal, financial, accounting, investment, auditing, forecasting, and others hired or retained by the Litigation Settlement Trust, including, without limitation, any such persons hired or retained in connection with the alternative dispute resolution and litigation activities of the Litigation Settlement Trust, ;
(B) compensation of the Litigation Settlement Trustee, and reimbursement of the Litigation Settlement Trustee and the Litigation Settlement TAC members all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses actually incurred by such persons in connection with the performance of their duties hereunder; and
(C) costs and expenses of the Litigation Settlement Trust related to the Westport Participation Agreement, the Westport Loan, or the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets;
(iv) establish such reserves and accounts, including but not limited to reserves for the Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses, with the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets as deemed by the Litigation Settlement Trustee to be useful in carrying out the purposes of the Litigation Settlement Trust;
(v) participate, as a party or otherwise, in any judicial, administrative, arbitrative, or other proceeding;
(vi) establish, supervise and administer the Litigation Settlement Trust in accordance with the Plan, this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement TDP, and administer, amend, supplement, or modify the Litigation Settlement TDP in accordance with the terms thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A;
(vii) appoint such officers and hire employees, and engage legal, financial, accounting, investment, auditing, forecasting, and other consultants and agents as the business of the Litigation Settlement Trust may require; and to delegate to such persons power and authority as the fiduciary duties of the Litigation Settlement Trustee permit and as the Litigation Settlement Trustee, in his or her discretion, deems advisable or necessary to carry out the purposes of the Litigation Settlement Trust in accordance with the Plan and this Agreement;
(viii) execute and deliver such instruments as the Litigation Settlement Trustee considers proper in administering the Litigation Settlement Trust;
(ix) enter into such other arrangements with third parties as are deemed by the Litigation Settlement Trustee to be useful in carrying out the purposes of
-4-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 6 of 35
the Litigation Settlement Trust, provided such arrangements do not conflict with any other provision of this Agreement;
(x) defend and indemnify, and if appropriate purchase insurance indemnifying (a) the Litigation Settlement Trustee, (b) the Litigation Settlement TAC, and (c) the officers and employees of, and the legal, financial, accounting, investment, auditing, forecasting, and other advisors or consultants hired or retained by the Litigation Settlement Trust (the "Additional Indemnitees"), to the fullest extent that a corporation or trust organized under the law of the State of Delaware is from time to time entitled to indemnify and/or insure its directors, officers, employees, agents, advisors and representatives;
(xi) consult with the Litigation Settlement TAC at such times and with respect to such issues relating to the conduct of the Litigation Settlement Trust as the Litigation Settlement Trustee considers desirable;
(xii) make, pursue (by litigation or otherwise), collect, compromise or settle, in the name of the Litigation Settlement Trust, any Claim, right, action, or cause of action, if any, included in the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets before any court of competent jurisdiction; provided that the Litigation Settlement Trust must seek approval from the Bankruptcy Court, after notice to parties in interest, of any settlement of actions that are pending before the Bankruptcy Court as of the Effective Date; and
(xiii) process and resolve, as appropriate, Litigation Claims as provided in the Plan, this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement TOP.
(d) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall not have the power to cause the Litigation Settlement Trust to guarantee debt of any other Entity.
(e) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall give the Litigation Settlement TAC prompt notice of any act performed or taken pursuant to Sections 2.2(c)(i) and (ii), and 2.2(d), and any act proposed to be performed or taken pursuant to Section 2.2(f), below.
2.2 General Administration.
(a) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall act in accordance with this Agreement, the Litigation Settlement TOP, and the Plan. In the event of an inconsistency between the Plan and this Agreement, the Plan shall govern.
(b) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall: (i) timely file such income tax and other returns and statements required to be filed by the Litigation Settlement Trust and shall from the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets timely pay all taxes required to be paid by the Litigation Settlement Trust, (ii) comply with all withholding obligations, as required under the applicable provisions of the IRC and of any state law and any regulations promulgated thereunder, (iii) meet without limitation all requirements
-5-
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 7 of 35
necessary to qualify and maintain qualification of the Litigation Settlement Trust as a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of section 1.468B-1 et seq. of the Treasury Regulations promulgated under section 468B of the IRC, and (iv) take no action that could cause the Litigation Settlement Trust to fail to qualify as a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of section 1.468B-1 et seq. of the Treasury Regulations promulgated under section 468B of the IRC.
(c) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall timely account to the Bankruptcy Court as follows:
(i) Depending on whether the Litigation Settlement Trustee decides, in his or her sole discretion, to operate the Litigation Settlement Trust on a calendar or fiscal year basis, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall cause to be prepared and filed with the Bankruptcy Court, as soon as available, but in no event later than one hundred and twenty (120) days following the end of each calendar or fiscal year, an annual report containing, inter alia, financial statements of the Litigation Settlement Trust (including, without limitation, a balance sheet of the Litigation Settlement Trust as of the end of such fiscal year and a statement of operations for such fiscal year). The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall provide a copy of such report to the Litigation Settlement TAC, when such reports are filed with the Bankruptcy Court.
(ii) Simultaneously with delivery of each set of financial statements referred to in Section 2.2(c)(i), above, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall cause to be prepared and filed with the Bankruptcy Court a report containing a summary regarding the number and type of Litigation Claims disposed of during the period covered by the financial statements. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall provide a copy of such report to the Litigation Settlement TAC, when such report is filed with the Bankruptcy Court.
(iii) All materials required to be filed with the Bankruptcy Court by this Section 2.2(c) shall be available for inspection by the public in accordance with procedures established by the Bankruptcy Court.
(d) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shali cause to be prepared as soon as practicable prior to the commencement of each calendar or fiscal year a budget and cash flow projections covering such calendar or fiscal year. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall provide a copy of the budget and cash flow projections to the Litigation Settlement TAC.
(e) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall consult with the Litigation Settlement TAC (i) on the general implementation and administration of the Litigation Settlement Trust; (ii) on the general implementation and administration of the Litigation Settlement TDP; and (iii) on such other matters as may be required under this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement TDP.
-6-
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 8 of 35
(f) The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall meet with the Litigation Settlement TAC no less often than semiannually. The Litigation Settlement Trustee otherwise may meet with the Litigation Settlement TAC as and when deemed advisable by the Litigation Settlement Trustee. Any meetings taking place pursuant to this Section 2.2(f) may occur in person or telephonically.
(g) The Litigation Settlement Trustee, upon notice from the Litigation Settlement TAC, if practicable in view of pending business, shall at the next meeting with the Litigation Settlement TAC, consider issues submitted by the Litigation Settlement TAC for consideration by the Litigation Settlement Trust.
(h) Periodically, but not less often than once a year, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall make available to Claimants and other interested parties the number of claims that have been resolved by the Litigation Settlement Trust and the amounts of the awards in each case.
2.3 Litigation Claims Administration. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall promptly proceed to implement the Litigation Settlement TDP.
Section III ACCOUNTS AND PAYMENTS
3.1 Accounts. The Litigation Settlement Trustee may, from time to time, create such accounts and reserves as he or she may deem necessary, prudent, or useful to (a) provide for the payment, or to make provision for future payment, of Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses, up to the Litigation Settlement Expenses Cap (as defined in Section 3.3, below), (b) provide for the payment, or to make provision for future payment, on account of liquidated Litigation Claims, and/or (c) account for any tax withholding and tax payments that may be necessary with respect to amounts to be paid to Holders of liquidated Litigation Claims; and may, with respect to any such account or reserve, restrict the use of monies therein. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall include a reasonably detailed description of any account or reserve created in accordance with this Section 3.1 in the annual reports described in Section 2.2(c)(i) hereof, which description shall include, with respect to any such account, the transfers made to such account, the proceeds of or earnings on the assets held in each such account, and the payments or disbursements made from each such account.
3.2 Source of Payments. All Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses and all other liabilities of the Litigation Settlement Trust, including for Litigation Claims and shall be payable solely by the Litigation Settlement Trustee out of the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets. Neither any Litigation Protected Party, nor the Litigation Settlement Trustee in his or her personal capacity, the Litigation Settlement TAC, or any of their respective officers, agents, advisors, or employees shall be liable for the payment of Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses or any other liability of the Litigation Settlement Trust. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall include a reasonably detailed description of Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses and other liabilities paid in accordance with this Section 3.2 in the annual reports described in Section 2.2(c)(i), above.
3.3 Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses. Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses
-7-
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 9 of 35
shall be paid as and when incurred by the Litigation Settlement Trust, up to a total of $100,000 (the "Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses Cap"). The Litigation Settlement Trustee may seek approval from the Litigation Settlement TAC for increases to the Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses Cap by making a request to the Litigation Settlement TAC. The Litigation Settlement TAC shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving such request, approve or reject such request by notice to the Litigation Settlement Trustee. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Litigation Settlement TAC.
3.4 Litigation Claim Payments; Withholding. Litigation Claims shall be submitted to the Trust in the manner prescribed in the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP, and resolved and paid, where applicable, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP. Litigation Claims shall be paid from the "Litigation Claims Payment Fund", consisting of the total sum of the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets, less the Litigation Settlement Trust Expenses Cap. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall withhold from any distributions to be made to Holders of allowed Litigation Claims, any and all amounts, determined pursuant to the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP and the Litigation Settlement Trustee's reasonable sole discretion, as required under applicable law, regulation, rule, ruling, directive, or other goverurnental requirement. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall (a) remit such withheld amounts to the appropriate goverurnental entity(ies), and (b) report to such appropriate goverurnental entity(ies) any distributions and withholdings on account of an allowed Litigation Claim, as required by applicable Jaw, regulation, rule, ruling, directive, or other goverurnental requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Holder of an allowed Litigation Claim that is to receive a distribution pursuant to the Litigation Settlement Trust TDP shall have sole and exclusive responsibility for the satisfaction and payment of any tax obligations imposed by any goverurnental unit, including income, withholding, and other tax obligations, on account of such distribution.
Section IV LITIGATION SETTLEMENT TRUSTEE
4.1 Number. There shall be one (I) Litigation Settlement Trustee. The initial Litigation Settlement Trustee shall be the person named on the signature page hereof.
4.2 Term of Service.
(a) The initial Litigation Settlement Trustee named pursuant to Section 4.1, above, shall serve from the Effective Date until the earlier of (i) his or her death, (ii) his or her resignation pursuant to Section 4.2(b), below, (iii) his or her removal pursuant to Section 4.2(c), below, or (iv) the termination of the Litigation Settlement Trust pursuant to Section 6.4, below.
(b) A Litigation Settlement Trustee may resign at any time by written notice to the Litigation Settlement TAC. Such notice shall specify a date when such resignation shall take place, which shall not be Jess than 90 days after the date such notice is given, where practicable.
.g.
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 10 of 35
(c) A Litigation Settlement Trustee may be removed by order of the Bankruptcy Court upon notice and motion filed by the Litigation Settlement TAC in the event that the Litigation Settlement Trustee becomes unable to discharge his or her duties hereunder due to accident or physical or mental deterioration, or for other good cause. Good cause shall be deemed to include, without limitation (i) substantial failure to comply with the general administration provisions of Section 2.2, above, (ii) a consistent pattern of neglect and failure to perform or participate in performing the duties of the Litigation Settlement Trustee hereunder, (iii) repeated nonattendance at scheduled meetings, or (iv) one of the circumstances set forth in Section 4.7 of this Agreement. Removal shall take effect at such time as the Bankruptcy Court shall determine.
4.3 Appointment of Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee.
(a) In the event of a vacancy in the position of a Litigation Settlement Trustee, the Litigation Settlement TAC shall consult concerning appointment of a successor (a "Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee"). The vacancy shall be filled by the vote of a majority of the Litigation Settlement TAC members. In the event that the Litigation Settlement TAC members fail to secure a majority vote for the appointment of a Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee, the Bankruptcy Court shall make the appointment. A Litigation Settlement Trustee who is removed for cause may not subsequently serve as a Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee.
(b) Immediately upon the appointment of any Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee, all rights, titles, duties, powers and authority of the predecessor Litigation Settlement Trustee hereunder shall be vested in, and undertaken by, the Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee without any further act. No Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee shall be liable personally for any act or omission of his or her predecessor Litigation Settlement Trustee.
(c) A Successor Litigation Settlement Trustee shall serve until the earlier of (i) his or her death, (ii) his or her resignation pursuant to Section 4.2(b), above, (iii) his or her removal pursuant to Section 4.2(c), above, or (iv) the termination of the Litigation Settlement Trust pursuant to Section 6.4, below.
4.4 Liability of Litigation Settlement Trustee, Litigation Settlement TAC.
Neither the Litigation Settlement Trustee nor the members of the Litigation Settlement TAC shall have any liability to the Litigation Settlement Trust, to any Litigation Claimant, or to any other Entity, for actions taken or not taken in connection with the operation of the Litigation Settlement Trust or the administration, processing, settlement, resolution, liquidation, satisfaction and/or payment of Litigation Claims under the Litigation Settlement TDP except for a breach of fiduciary duty by any of the foregoing committed through fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct.
4.5 Compensation and Expenses of Litigation Settlement Trustee.
(a) Subject to Section 3.3, above, for all time expended (i) administering the Litigation Settlement Trust in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Plan,
NY\7379172.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 11 of 35

(ii) preparing for and attending Litigation Settlement Trust meetings, and (iii) receiving, processing, administering, resolving, liquidating and/or paying Litigation Claims, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall receive the sum of$_ per hour, and the sum of $_ per hour3 for non-working travel time, in both cases computed on a quarter-hour basis. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall record all hourly time to be charged to the Litigation Settlement Trust on a daily basis.
(b) On a monthly basis, by the 151h day of each month for the preceding month, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall submit bills for compensation for such preceding month to the Litigation Settlement TAC. If no objection is made in writing to such bill within seven (7) days of submission, then the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall be entitled to pay such bill from the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets. If a written objection is timely submitted, the objecting party shall discuss its objection in good faith with the Litigation Settlement Trustee in an effort to reach a consensual resolution. If no resolution is reached within seven (7) days of submission of a written objection then the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall be entitled to payment of the monthly bill to which such objection was submitted unless a written objection is filed with the Bankruptcy Court seeking a determination of the matter. An objection to a monthly bill filed with the Bankruptcy Court and notice of any hearing scheduled on such matter must be served on the Litigation Settlement Trust and the members of the Litigation Settlement TAC. If a written objection is filed, payment of the bill to which the objection relates shall be made only pursuant to (i) an order of the Bankruptcy Court or (ii) agreement of the Litigation Settlement Trustee and the party filing the objection, which agreement also would result in a withdrawal of the objection filed with the Bankruptcy Court.
(c) Subject to Section 3.3, above, the Litigation Settlement Trust will promptly reimburse the Litigation Settlement Trustee for all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by the Litigation Settlement Trustee in connection with the performance of his or her duties hereunder, provided however, that the Litigation Settlement TAC may make such motion to the Bankruptcy Court as they deem advisable to seek disgorgement of any cost or expense for which the Litigation Settlement Trustee has received reimbursement that the Litigation Settlement TAC believes was not reasonable under the circumstances.
(d) The hourly compensation payable to the Litigation Settlement Trustee hereunder may be reviewed by the Litigation Settlement Trustee on a yearly basis and, after consultation with the Litigation Settlement TAC, appropriately adjusted as may be reasonable under the circumstances including, without limitation, for changes in the cost of living.
(e) The Litigation Settlement Trust shall include a description of the amounts paid under this Section 4.5 in the accounts to be filed with the Bankruptcy Court and provided to the Litigation Settlement TAC pursuant to Section 2.2(c)(i), above.

2 To be determined prior to the Confirmation Hearing. 3 To be determined prior to the Confirmation Hearing.

NY\7379172.9

-10-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 12 of 35

4.6 Litigation Settlement Trustee's Employment of Experts. The Litigation Settlement Trustee may, but shall not be required to, retain and/or consult with counsel, accountants, appraisers, auditors, forecasters, experts, financial and investment advisors and such other parties deemed by the Litigation Settlement Trustee to be qualified as experts on the matters submitted to them (a "Trust Professional"). In the absence of the Litigation Settlement Trustee's gross negligence, the written opinion of, or information provided by, any such Trust Professional on the particular matter in respect of which such Trust Professional is an expert may be relied upon by the Litigation Settlement Trustee and shall be full and complete authorization and protection to the Litigation Settlement Trustee in respect of any action taken or not taken in good faith by the Litigation Settlement Trustee otherwise consistent with this Agreement and in accordance with the written opinion of or information provided by such Trust Professional. Fees paid to Trust Professionals shall be deemed Litigation Trust Expenses subject to the limitations in Section 3.3, above.

4.7 Litigation Settlement Trustee's Independence. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall not, during the term of his or her service, hold a financial interest in, act as attorney or agent for, or serve as any other professional for any Entity with a financial interest in the operation of the Litigation Settlement Trust. No Litigation Settlement Trustee shall act as an attorney for any Claimant either (i) in connection with such Claimant's Litigation Claim, or (ii) otherwise prior to final payment on account of such Litigation Claim. In addition to the circumstances set forth in Section 4.2(c) of this Agreement, any violation of this Section 4.7 shall be cause for removal ofthe Litigation Settlement Trustee.

4.8 Bond. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall not be required to post any bond or other form of surety or security unless otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section V TRUST ADVISORY COMMITTEE

5.1 Formulation and Members. The Litigation Settlement TAC shall be formed pursuant to the Plan as of the Effective Date. The Litigation Settlement TAC shall consist of three (3) members, who shall initially be the persons named on the signature page hereof.

5.2 Duties. The members of the Litigation Settlement TAC shall serve in a fiduciary capacity representing all Litigation Claimants. The Litigation Settlement Trustee must consult with the Litigation Settlement TAC on matters identified in Sections 2.2(e) and 3.3, above, and may consult with the Litigation Settlement TAC with respect to such other matters affecting or relating to the Litigation Settlement Trust.

5.3 Term of Office.

(a) Each member of the Litigation Settlement TAC shall serve until the earlier of (i) his or her death, (ii) his or her resignation pursuant to Section 5.3(b), below, (iii) his or her removal pursuant to Section 5.3(c), below, or (iv) the termination of the Litigation Settlement Trust pursuant to Section 6.4, below.

(b) A member of the Litigation Settlement TAC may resign at any time by written notice to the other members of the Litigation Settlement TAC and the Litigation

NY\7379172.9

-II-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 13 of 35

Settlement Trustee. Such notice shall specify a date when such resignation shall take effect, which shall not be less than ninety (90) days after the date such notice is given, where practicable.
(c) A member of the Litigation Settlement TAC may be removed in the event that he or she becomes unable to discharge his or her duties hereunder due to accident, physical deterioration, mental incompetence, or a consistent pattern of neglect and failure to perform or to participate in performing the duties of such member hereunder, such as repeated nonattendance at scheduled meetings, or for other good cause. Such removal shall be made at the recommendation of the remaining members of the Litigation Settlement TAC with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court.
5.4 Appointment of Successor Members.
(a) A vacancy in the Litigation Settlement TAC caused by resignation, death or as a result of removal, shall be filled with an individual, not a firm, nominated by the remaining members of the Litigation Settlement TAC and approved by the majority vote of the Litigation Settlement Trustee and all remaining members of the Litigation Settlement TAC. No member of the Litigation Settlement TAC who has been removed for cause may be reappointed.
(b) Each successor member of the Litigation Settlement TAC shall serve until the earlier of (i) his or her death, (ii) his or her resignation pursuant to Section 5.3(b), above, (iii) his or her removal pursuant to Section 5.3(c), above, or (iv) the termination of the Litigation Settlement Trust pursuant to Section 6.4, below.
5.5 Litigation Settlement TAC's Employment of Professionals. The Litigation Settlement TAC may at its sole cost (but is not required to) retain and/or consult counsel, accountants, appraisers, auditors, forecasters, experts, and financial and investment advisors, and such other parties deemed by the Litigation Settlement TAC to be qualified as experts on matters submitted to the TAC (the "TAC Professionals"). Subject to the provisions of Section 6.1 of this Agreement, the Litigation Settlement TAC and the TAC Professionals shall at all times have complete access to the Litigation Settlement Trust's employees and agents, as well as to the Trust Professionals, and shall also have complete access to all information generated by them or otherwise available to the Litigation Settlement Trust or the Litigation Settlement Trustee other than the Privileged Information (as defined in the Plan), provided that any information provided by the Trust Professionals shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege, and provided further that the foregoing provisions shall not amend, modify, or alter in any fashion the provisions regarding and/or restrictions applicable to Privileged Information, the terms of which apply fully hereunder. In the absence of the Litigation Settlement TAC's gross negligence, the written opinion of or information provided by any such TAC Professional on the particular matter in respect of which such TAC Professional is an expert may be relied upon by the Litigation Settlement TAC and shall be full and complete authorization and protection to the Litigation Settlement TAC in respect of any action taken or not taken in good faith by the Litigation Settlement TAC otherwise consistent with this Agreement and in accordance with the written opinion of or information provided by such TAC Professional.

NY\7379172.9

-12-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 14 of 35

5.6 Reimbursing Expenses of Litigation Settlement TAC. Subject to Section 3.3, above, the members of the Litigation Settlement TAC shall be reimbursed promptly for all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by the members of the Litigation Settlement TAC in connection with their attendance at meetings and as may be agreed upon by the Litigation Settlement Trustee. Any such reimbursement or direct payment shall be deemed a Litigation Settlement Trust Expense. The Litigation Settlement Trust shall include a description of the amounts paid under this Section 5.6 in the accounts to be filed with the Bankruptcy Court and provided to the Litigation Settlement Trustee and the Litigation Settlement TAC, pursuant to Section 2.2(c)(i) above.
Section VI GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Procedures for Consultation with Litigation Settlement TAC. In the event the Litigation Settlement Trustee is required to consult with the Litigation Settlement TAC as provided herein, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall provide the Litigation Settlement TAC with written advance notice of the matter under consideration, and with all relevant information concerning the matter as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The Litigation Settlement Trustee shall also provide the Litigation Settlement TAC with such reasonable access to Trust Professionals and other experts retained by the Litigation Settlement Trust and its staff (if any) as the Litigation Settlement TAC may reasonably request during the time that the Litigation Settlement Trustee is considering such matter, and shall also provide Litigation Settlement TAC the opportunity, at reasonable times and for reasonable periods of time, to discuss and comment on such matter with the Litigation Settlement Trustee; provided that in no event shall the Litigation Settlement TAC or its members (a) have any role, whether by consent, consultation or otherwise, in the Litigation Settlement Trust's selection of counsel, experts or other professionals to defend Litigation Claims against the Litigation Settlement Trust, or (b) have any right to consult with or obtain information from the Litigation Settlement Trust or anyone employed by the Litigation Settlement Trust concerning the defense of any such Litigation Claims.
In determining when to take definitive action on any matter subject to the consultation process set forth in this Section 6.1, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall take into consideration the time required for the Litigation Settlement TAC, if its members so wish, to engage and consult with a TAC Professional as to such matter. In any event, the Litigation Settlement Trustee shall not take definitive action on any such matter until at least thirty (30) days after providing the Litigation Settlement TAC with the initial written notice that such matter is under consideration by the Litigation Settlement Trustee, unless such time period is waived by the Litigation Settlement TAC.
6.2 Indemnification.
(a) The Litigation Settlement Trust shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Litigation Settlement Trustee, the members of the Litigation Settlement TAC and the Additional Indemnitees in the performance of their respective duties hereunder to the fullest extent that a corporation or trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware is entitled to indemnify and defend such persons against any and all liabilities, expenses,

NY\7379172.9

-13-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 15 of 35

claims, damages or losses incurred by them in the performance of their duties hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no individual shall be indemnified or defended in any way for any liability, expense, claim, damage, or loss for which he or she is ultimately held liable as a result of such individual's own breach of fiduciary duty committed through fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct.

(b) The Litigation Settlement Trust may purchase and maintain reasonable amounts and types of insurance on behalf of an Indemnified Party to provide for payment of the obligations of the Litigation Settlement Trust under this Section 6.1 of this Agreement.

6.3 Irrevocability. The Litigation Settlement Trust is irrevocable.

6.4 Termination. The Litigation Settlement Trust shall automatically terminate on the date that is ninety (90) days after the date that all Litigation Claims have been (a) liquidated and paid to the extent provided in this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement TDP, or (b) disallowed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement TDP.

6.5 Amendments. The Litigation Settlement Trustee, after consultation with the Litigation Settlement TAC pursuant to Section 6.1 of this Agreement, may modify or amend this Agreement, provided that any such amendments must be consistent with the requirements of the Plan. The Litigation Settlement Trustee, after consultation with the Litigation Settlement TAC pursuant to Section 6.1 of this Agreement, may modify or amend the Litigation Settlement TDP, provided, however, that such amendment is consistent with (a) any limitation on amendments provided in the Litigation Settlement TDP, and (b) the requirements of the Plan. Any modification or amendment made pursuant to this Section 6.5 must be made in writing. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement or the Litigation Settlement TDP to the contrary, neither this Agreement nor the Litigation Settlement TDP shall be modified or amended in any way that could jeopardize, impair, or modify (i) the efficacy or enforceability of the injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Plan, or (ii) the status of the Litigation Settlement Trust as a qualified settlement fund under section 4688 ofthe IRC.

6.6 Severabilitv. Should any provision in this Agreement be determined to be unenforceable, such determination shall in no way limit or affect the enforceability and operative effect of any and all other provisions of this Agreement.

6.7 Notices. Notices to Litigation Claimants shall be given by first class mail, postage prepaid, at the address of such person in each case as provided on such person's Proof of Claim with respect to his or her Litigation Claim.

Any notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder to the following parties shall be in writing and delivered at the addresses designated below, or sent by e-mail or facsimile pursuant to the instructions listed below, or mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, or to such other address or addresses as may hereafter be furnished in writing to each of the other parties listed below in compliance with the terms hereof.

To the Litigation Settlement Trust: [TO BE PROVIDED]

NY\7379172.9

-14-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 16 of 35

To the Litigation Settlement Trustee: (TO BE PROVIDED]
To the Litigation Settlement TAC:
With a copy to:
All such notices and communications if mailed shall be effective when physically delivered at the designated addresses or, if electronically transmitted, when the communication is received at the designated addresses and confirmed by the recipient by return transmission.
6.8 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Litigation Protected Parties, the Litigation Settlement Trust, the Litigation Settlement Trustee, and their respective successors and assigns, except that neither the Litigation Protected Parties, the Litigation Settlement Trust, the Litigation Settlement Trustee, may assign or otherwise transfer any of its, or their, rights or obligations under this Agreement except, in the case of the Litigation Settlement Trust and the Litigation Settlement Trustee, as contemplated by Section 2.1, above.
6.9 Entire Agreement; No Waiver. The entire agreement of the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement is contained herein and in the Plan Documents referred to herein, and this Agreement and such documents supersede any prior oral or written agreements concerning the subject matter hereof. No failure to exercise or delay in exercising any right, power or privilege hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power or privilege hereunder preclude any further exercise thereof or of any other right, power or privilege. The rights and remedies herein provided are cumulative and are not exclusive of rights under Jaw or in equity.
6.10 Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and do not constitute a portion of this Agreement, nor in any manner affect the construction of the provisions of this Agreement.
6.11 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the Jaws of the State of Delaware, without regard to conflict of Jaw principles.
6.12 Representations and Cooperation. The Debtors are hereby irrevocably designated as the settlors, and are hereby authorized to take any action required of the settlors in connection with this Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Debtors, the Signal Liquidating Trustee, and the Purchaser agree to reasonably cooperate as may be requested by the Litigation Settlement Trustee in implementing the goals and objectives of the Litigation Settlement Trust.
6.13 Dispute Resolution. Any disputes that arises under this Agreement or under the Litigation Settlement TOP may be resolved by (i) submission of the matter to an alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") process mutually-agreeable to the parties involved with such dispute, or (ii) application to the Bankruptcy Court for a judicial determination of the matter, except as otherwise provided herein or in the Litigation Settlement TOP. Any review by the Bankruptcy Court of a dispute that is first submitted to non-binding ADR shall be de novo.

NY\7379172.9

-15-

-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 17 of 35
6.14 Enforcement and Administration. The provisions of this Agreement and the Litigation Settlement TDP shall be enforced by the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to the Plan. The parties hereby further acknowledge and agree that the Bankruptcy Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement of the accounts of the Litigation Settlement Trustee and over any disputes hereunder not resolved by ADR in accordance with Section 6.13, above.
6.15 Effectiveness. This Agreement shall not become effective until it has been executed and delivered by all the parties hereto.
6.16 Counternart Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement this day of _ __
_ _,2015.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND ITS AFFILIATE DEBTORS
TBiyt:le: .../.:s../::.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
LITIGATION SETTLEMENT TRUSTEE
By: ....:.l:::_sl_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Title:

NY\7379172.9

-16-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 18 of 35 Accepted and Agreed: LITIGATION SETTLEMENT TRUST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
-17-
NY\7379!72.9

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 19 of 35
Exhibit A

NY\7379172.9

-18-

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 20 of 35

SIGNAL LITIGATION SETTLEMENT TRUST DISTRIBUTION PROCEDURES

The Signal Litigation Settlement Trust Distribution Procedures (''TDP") set forth herein provide for resolving all Litigation Claims against Signal International, Inc. and Signal International, LLC, as provided in and required by the Plan Support Agreement, the Plan, and the Confirmation Order.• The Plan and Litigation Settlement Trust Agreement establish the Signal Litigation Settlement Trust ("Trust"). The Trustee of the Trust shall implement and administer this TDP in accordance with the Plan, Confirmation Order, and the Litigation Settlentent Trust Agreement.

Section I INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Purpose. This TDP has been adopted pursuant to the Plan, Confirmation Order,

and the Litigation Settlement Trust Agreement. It is designed to provide similarly situated

Litigation Claims with equitable and substantially similar treatment.

1.2.

Interpretation. Except as otherwise may be provided below, nothing in this TDP

shall be deemed to create a substantive right for any holder of a Litigation Claim.

Seciionll OVERVIEW

2.1

Trust Objectives. The principal objective of the Trust is to provide a source of

funding and criteria for the compensation of all holders of Litigation Claims and, in doing so, to

treat all similarly-situated Litigation Claims equitably. This TDP furthers that goal by setting

forth procedures for processing and paying claims generally on an impartial and predictable

basis. To this end, the TDP establishes a schedule of claim categories, eligibility requirements,

and corresponding payment values.

2.2

Claims Liquidation Procedures. The Trustee shall process and evaluate

Litigation Claims that are submitted to the Trust to determine (a) whether the submitted claim

meets the eligibility requirements for the category in which it is submitted and (b) the

compensation to be paid for eligible claims, as set forth below.

·Section ill TDP ADMINISTRATION

3.1

Trust Administrator. This TDP may be administered on behalf of the Trustee

by an agent or employee who shall be referred to as the ''Trust Administrator." Selection of the

Trust Administrator shall be based on the experience, fees to be charged, and commercial

reputation of the prospective candidates. The Trust Administrator may be delegated the

authority by the Trustee to act on behalf ofthe Trustee under this TDP.

·All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings' ascribed to them in Debtors' Joint Plan ofLiquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 ofthe Bankruptcy Code, as may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time (the ''Plan") and such definitions are incorporated herein by reference. All capitalized terms not defined herein or in the Plan, but defined in the Bankruptcy Code or Federal Ru1es of Baokruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Ru1es"), shall have the meanings given to them by the Bankruptcy Code aod Bankruptcy Ru1es, aod such definitions are incorporated herein by reference.

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 21 of 35

3.2

Consent and Consultation Procedures. The Trust Administrator shall act at the

direction of the Trustee and shall serve at the will of the Trustee. The Trust Administrator shall

regularly consult with the Trustee and, in the instance of any Litigation Claim or other issue

which is not resolved by the terms of the Trust Agreement or this IDP, shall obtain the guidance

ofthe Trustee.

3.3.

Duty to Follow Trust Agreement and TDP Provisions. The Trust

Administrator may be authorized to administer the provisions of the Trust Agreement and TDP

in its discretion, but in so doing, the Trust Administrator shall strictly comply with the express

provisions of the Trust Agreement and this TDP. Notwithstanding anything herein to the

contrary, the Trustee may only delegate ministerial duties to the Trust Administrator.

Section IV ELIGffiiLITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1

Persons Eligible. A Litigation Claim will be eligible for compensation, subject

to satisfying the requirements of this IDP, if:

(a) the Litigation Claimant was offered employment or was recruited by Signal International Inc. and/or Signal International, LLC (collectively, "Signal'') through the H2B temporary guest worker program, as evidenced by an original or copy of one of the following pieces of documentation:

AND

I. an H-2B visa for employment at Signal stamped with a July 31,2007 expiration date;
2. the operative complaint or amended complaint alleging the Litigation Claimant was an employee of Signal and Signal's answer to the complaint or amended complaint admitting the Litigation Claimant was an employee;
3. a letter from Signal dated no later than February 28, 2007 offering the Litigation Claimant employment through the H-2B temporary guest worker and/or permanent residency/"green card" program;
4. Signal payroll records showing the Litigation Claimant was an employee with a badge number beginning in "5" or "6"; provided, however, that a Litigation Claimant that is solely represented by the EEOC may rely on one or more copies of Signal payroll records provided by the EEOC;
5. a Signal identification badge identifying the Litigation Claimant as an employee with a badge number beginning in "5" or "6"; or
6. sworn testimony by'a Signal employee identifying the Litigation Claimant as an employee hired through the H-2B temporary guest worker program.

(b) the Litigation Claimant (i) timely submitted a Proof of Claim asserting his Litigation Claim in the Bankruptcy Cases, (ii) otherwise is covered by the Proof of Claim submitted by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA'') Claimant Group, or submitted or to be submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), to the extent timely submitted, or (iii) solely with respect to a

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 22 of 35

LFoitrimga.t•ion Claim against a non-Debtor Released Party, timely submitted a Trust Claim

4.2

Claim Categories. There are two (2) categories of Litigation Claims which may

be submitted under this TDP, as follows:

(a) Liquidated Judgment Claims: Litigation Claims held by or for the benefit of H-2B Workers that had been asserted in a court of law in the United States of America against one or more of the Debtors before the Petition Date, and that had been liquidated by a jury verdict or judgment in such court of law before the Petition Date ("Judgment Claimants").

(b) Unliquidated Litigation Claims: Any Litigation Claim that is not a Liquidated Judgment Claim.

4.3. Claim Components and Documentation Required to Evidence Eligibility for Compensation. Each Litigation Claimant may assert one or more offourteen (14) claims eligible for compensation from the Litigation Claim Payment Fund,t each of which shall be considered a component ofthat Litigation Claimant's overall claim, provided that no Litigation Claimant may assert a claim or claims that have been dismissed with prejudice by a final ruling of a court oflaw in the United States of America. The Trustee shall determine, based on the submitted Trust Claim Forms, the specific claim component or components asserted by the Litigation Claimant. The general description of each potential claim component is set forth in Sections 4.3(a) through (n) below.

In order to evidence eligibility for compensation from the T:rilst, each Litigation Claimant must submit or have submitted on such Litigation Claimant's behalf: (1) a completed Trust Claim Form in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and/or Exhibit B; (2) at least one of the documents identified in Section 4.l(a); and (3) such documentation as required to evidence the existence of each claim component asserted on such Litigation Claimant's Trust Claim Forms, as set forth in Sections 4.3(a) through (n), as applicable, as to each Debtor or non-Debtor Released Party against which such claim is asserted.
(a) Trafficking: Labor trafficking claims brought, or that could be brought, under civil remedy of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, as amended ("TVPRA"). Each Litigation Claimant asserting a trafficking claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was recruited for employment at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)); (ii) the

For the avoidance of doubt, any Litigation Claimant asserting a claim against a Debtor must satisfy either Section 4.l(b)(i) or (ii), regardless of whether such Litigation Claimant also satisfied the requirements of Section 4.1(b)(iii) for asserting a Litigation Claim against a non-Debtor Released Party.

t

The only claim against a non-Debtor Released Party that is eligible for compensation from the Litigation

Claim Payment Fund is Trafficking.

. •

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 23 of 35

claimant paid fees to Signal or its Agents* for the opportunity to work at Signal (as evidenced by receipts, canceled checks, an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court oflaw in the United States of America attesting to such fact); (iii) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one ofthe pieces ofdocumentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); and (iv) solely with respect to a Litigation Claim against a non-Debtor Released Party, such non-Debtor Released Party itself directly provided or obtained for Signal the labor or services ofthe Litigation Claimant by means or threats of force, physical restraint, serious harm, or abuse oflegal process (as evidenced by (x) receipts reflecting such non-Debtor Released Party's collection ofmore than $10,000 (USD or equivalent value) in connection with the Litigation Claimant's prospective employment for Signal nnder the H-2B program, or (y) sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court oflaw in the United States ofAmerica, attesting to threats of physical injury or deportation made directly to the Litigation Claimant or his innnediate family by such non-Debtor Released Party).
(b) Breach of Contract: Common law breach of contract claim and quasi-contract claim ("Breach of Contract") for Signal's failure to fulfill promises to sponsor H2B Workers for green cards. Each Litigation Claimant asserting a Breach of Contract claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was recruited for employment at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)); (ii) the claimant was told that Signal would sponsor him for a green card (as evidenced by an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court of law in the United States ofAmeriea attesting to such fact); and (iii) the claimant filed a lawsuit ¥serting Breach of Contract prior to May 5, 2014 (for claimants recruited for employment in Mississippi) or May 5, 2015 (for claimants recruited for employment in Texas).
(c) Section 1981 Discrimination/Harassment: Discrimination and harassment claims against Signal under42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981
Discrimination/Harassment") based on harassment and/or adverse terms and conditions of employment. Each Litigation Claimant asserting a Section 198I Discrimination/Harassment claim must provide evidence that the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of docnmentation identified in Section 4.l(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal).

•

For purposes ofthis TDP, Signal's "Agents" shall consist of Malvern C. Burnett, The Law Offices of

Malvern C. Burnett, PLC, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

Michael Pol, and Global Resources, Inc.

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 24 of 35
(d) Section 1981 Retaliation: Retaliation claims against Signal under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981 Retaliation") based on Signal's termination without cause of certain employees at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility on March 9, 2007. Signal's termination of certain employees on March 9, 2007 shall be considered
. without cause if Signal expressly targeted by badge number and terminated the H2B worker in retaliation for that worker engaging in protected activity opposing unlawful discrimination. Each Litigation Claimant asserting a Section 1981 Retaliation claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H~B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(1) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal terminated the claimant on March 9, 2007 on a basis other than because Signal believed the claimant lacked sufficient skill to perform the duties of the position he held (as evidenced by Signal records reflecting alternative motives for termination of such claimant); and (iii) the claimant filed a lawsuit in a court oflaw in the United States of America asserting Section 1981 Retaliation claims prior to March 9, 2011.
(e) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress <No Physical Injury): Tort claim against Signal for cormnon law intentional infliction ofemotional distress, for which physical injuries were not suffered ("liED-No Physical Injury") based on Signal employees' detention and attempted detention of certain employees at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility on March 9, 2007. Each Litigation Claimant asserting an liED-No Physical Injury claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces ofdocumentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wag~ earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal detained or attempted to detain the claimant on March 9, 2007 (as evidenced by an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court oflaw in the United States of America attesting to such fact); and (iii) the claimant filed a lawsuit in a court oflaw in the United States of America asserting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims prior to March 9, 2008.
(f) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Physical Injury): Tort claim against Signal for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which physical injuries were suffered and hospitalization required ("liED-Physical Injury'') based on Signal employees' detention and attempted detention of certain employees at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility on March 9, 2007 and/or threats ofphysical or bodily harm communicated directly to certain H-2B Workers or their family members by Signal employees or their agents on or about March 8, 2007. Each Litigation Claimant asserting an liED-Physical Injury claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting
NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 25 of 35
wages earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal detained or attempted to detain the claimant on March 9, 2007 or Signal or its Agents directly threatened family members on or about March 8, 2007 (as evidenced by an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court oflaw in the United States of America attesting to such fact); (iii) the claimant was hospitalized for injuries suffered on or about March 9, 2007 (this may be submitted by sworn testimony, rather than by medical records); and (iv) the claimant filed a lawsuit in a court of law in the United States ofAmerica asserting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims prior to March 9, 2008.
(g) False Imprisonment: Tort claim against Signal for common law false imprisonment ("False Imprisonment") based on Signal employees' detention and attempted deportation of certain employees at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility on March 9, 2007. Each Litigation Claimant asserting a False Imprisonment claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)(!) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal detained or attempted to detain the claimant on March 9, 2007 (as evidenced by an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court of law in the United States of America attesting to such fact); and (iii) the claimant filed a lawsuit in a court oflaw in the United States of America asserting False Imprisonment claims prior to March 9, 2008.
(h) Assault (Phvsical Iniurv): Tort claim against Signal for common law assault, for which physical injuries were suffered and hospitalization required ("Assault"), based on Signal employees' detention and physical touching of certain employees at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility on March 9, 2007. Each Litigation Claimant asserting an Assault claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one ofthe pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal detained or attempted to detain the claimant on March 9, 2007 (as evidenced by an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing ofa complaint in a court oflaw in the United States of America attesting to such fact); (iii) the claimant was hospitalized for injuries suffered on or about March 9, 2007 (this may be submitted by sworn testimony, rather than by medical records); and (iv) the claimant filed a lawsuit in a court oflaw in the United States ofAmerica asserting Assault claims prior to March 9, 2008.
(i) Civil Rights Conspiracy: Claim against Signal under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy to violate civil rights, for which physical injuries were suffered and hospitalization required ("Civil Rights Conspiracy''), based on Signal employees' detention and attempted deportation of certain employees at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, facility on March 9, 2007. Each Litigation Claimant asserting a Civil
NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 26 of 35
Rights Conspiracy claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal detained or attempted to detain the claimant on March 9, 2007 (as evidenced by an affidavit, sworn testimony, or the filing of a complaint in a court oflaw in the United States of America attesting to such fact); (iii) the claimant was hospitalized for injuries suffered on or about March 9, 2007 (this may be submitted by sworn testimony, rather than by medical records); and (iv) the claimant filed a lawsuit in a court oflaw in the United States ofAmerica asserting Civil Rights Company claims prior to March 9, 2011.
G) Fair Labor Standards Act: Claims against Signal under the FLSA for failure to pay the federal minimum wage for all hours worked held by H-2B Workers that had been asserted by timely filing before the claim was or will be time-barred under the applicable statute oflimitations and not withdrawing a Consent to Sue form in the matter ofDavidv. Signallnt'l, LLC, No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.). Each Litigation Claimant asserting a Fair Labor Standards Act claim must provide: (i) one of the documents listed in Section 4.1(a)(4) or (5); and (ii) a copy of the Consent to Sue by which the H-2B Worker timely asserted claims under the FLSA in the matter ofDavid v. Signal lnt 'l, LLC, No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.) prior to July 31,2011.
(k) EEOC Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation): Claims against Signal by Plaintiff EEOC for the benefit of former H-2B Workers under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. ("Title VII'') in the matter ofEEOC v. Signal Int'l, LLC, No. 12-557 (E.D. La.) for harassment and/or adverse terms and conditions of employment ("EEOC Title VII Beneficiaries"). EEOC Title VII Beneficiaries shall be treated as Litigation Claimants solely for the purposes of distribution under the TOP and such treatment shall not alter, abridge or amend the EEOC's authority under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) et seq., or any of EEOC's rights or status as a federal Plaintiff, including but not limited to the EEOC's rights to assert setoff. Each Litigation Claimant asserting a Title VII Claim (Not Including Retaliation) must provide evidence that the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one ofthe pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.l(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal).
Q) EEOC Intervenors' Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation): Claims against Signal in intervention in the matter ofEEOC v. Signal Int 'l, LLC, No. 12-557 (E.D. La.) under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. for harassment and/or adverse terms and conditions of employment, and discrimination by agents, based on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Each Litigation Claimant asserting an EEOC Intervenors' Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation) must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B
NY\73876052

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 27 of 35

guest worker program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of
documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either ofthe pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.l(a)(l) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); and (ii) the claimant was an intervenor in the matter ofEEOC v. Signal Int'l, LLC, No. 12-557 (E.D. La.).

(m) EEOC Title VII Retaliation Claims: Claims against Signal by Plaintiff EEOC and Plaintiffs-Intervenors for retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. in the matter ofEEOC v. Signal Int'l, LLC, No. 12-557 (E.D. La.). Each Litigation Claimant asserting an EEOC Title VII Retaliation Claim must provide evidence that (i) the claimant was employed at Signal through the H-2B guest worker
program (as evidenced by (x) any one of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1 (a)(2), (4), (5), or (6), or (y) either of the pieces of documentation identified in Section 4.1(a)(1) or (3) and pay stubs reflecting wages earned while employed at Signal); (ii) Signal terminated the claimant on March 9, 2007 on a basis other than because Signal believed the claimant lacked sufficient skill to perform the duties of the position he held (as evidenced by Signal records
reflecting alternative motives for termination ofsuch claimant); and (iii) the claimant alleged retaliation as an intervenor in the matter ofEEOC v. Signal Int 'I, LLC, No. 12-557 (E.D. La.).

(n) Attorneys' Fees and Costs: To the extent legally permissible, Litigation
Claimants who filed lawsuits against Signal and are represented by not-for-profit orgauizations (the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Equal Justice Center)
will have a claim for attorneys' fees and costs as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), 18 U.S.C. § 1595,42 U.S.C. § 1988,29 U.S.C. § 216, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(!), to the extent their non-profit counsel may collect such fees and costs to the extent that such Litigation Claimants are required to or have agreed to pay
their non-profit counsel for fees and costs, capped at a total non-reduced Claim Value of$6,567,500.00, consisting of a non-reduced Claim Value of$6,000,000 for attorneys' fees and costs claims for the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") and $567,000 for attorneys' fees and costs claims for the Equal Justice Center ("EJC"). Each Litigation Claimant asserting Attorneys' Fees and Costs
must provide evidence that the claimant was a plaintiffrepresented by the nonprofit SPLC in the matter David v. Signal Int 'I, LLC, No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.), EEOCv. Signallnt'l, LLC, No. 12-557 (E.D. La.), or by the non-profit EJC in the matter ofKambala v. Signal Int'l, LLC, No. 1:13-cv.00498-RC-ZJH (E.D. Tex.). A copy ofthe operative complaint or amended complaint in these cases, with the accompanying signature block, shall be adequate evidence.

.4.4

Characterization of Litigation Claims. For purposes of filing and

processing litigation claims:

(a) "General Litigation Claims" means those claims arising under Sections 4.3(a) through G) and also (n) as described above; and

(b) ''Title VII Litigation Claims" means those claims arising under Sections 4.3(k)

through (n) as described above.

·

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 28 of 35
General Litigation Claims shall only be asserted by meeting the requirements set forth herein and by completing the General Trust Claim Form (as defined below).
Title VII Litigation Claims shall only be asserted by meeting the requirements set forth herein and by completing the Title VII Trust Claim Form (as defined below).
Section V RESOLUTION OF LITIGATION CLAIMS
5.1 Filing Litigation Claims.
(a) Distribution and Filing of Litigation Claims. The General Litigation' Claims Packet will consist of (i) instructional materials, (ii) a form for asserting one or more of the eleven General Litigation Claims eligible for compensation· in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "General Trust Claim Form'), and (iii) a copy of this TDP.
The Title VII Litigation Claims Packet will consist of (i) instructional materials, (ii) a form for asserting Title VII Litigation Claims for asserting one or more of the four ·Title VII Litigation Claims eligible for compensation in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Title VII Trust Claim Form"), and (iii) a copy,ofthis TDP.
Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the Trustee shall send a General Litigation Claims Packet as defined above to (i) to all holders of Litigation Claims who on or before the General Bar Date filed a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy Cases at the addresses designated on the Proof of Claim form; provided, however, that the Trustee shall not send Title VII Trust Claim Forms to these Litigation Claimants, and (ii) at the Purchaser's expense, to all holders of Litigation Claims who are listed in the Schedules but for whom no Proof of Claim has been filed personally or by EEOC to the last address known to the Debtors according to the Debtors' books and records.
All holders of General Litigation Claims shall be required to return the applicable General Trust Claim Form provided in the General Litigation Claims Packet they receive within sixty (60) days after receipt, along with documentation evidencing eligibility as set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.3, above. A scanned copy of a signed General Trust Claim Form shall be the equivalent of an original. If the Litigation Claimant fails to return a General Trust Claim Form so that it is received by the Trustee within such sixty (60) day period, the any General Litigation Claim asserted by such Litigation Claimant shall be disallowed for all purposes hereunder; provided, however, that such disallowance shall not prejudice any claim that may be asserted on a Title VII Trust Claim Form by or on behalf of such Litigation Claimant.
No General Litigation Claim Form on behalf of a Litigation Claimant will be accepted by the Trustee if the Litigation Claimant failed to file a Proof of Claim on or before the General Bar Date, except to the extent that such General Litigation Claim Form asserts claims solely against non-Debtor Released Parties.
NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 29 of 35
Within thirty (30) days after the earlier of (i) the Government Bar Date or (ii) the date on which the EEOC delivers a written request to the Trustee to receive the Title VII Litigation Claims Packets, the Trustee shall send to the EEOC one copy of the Title VII Litigation Claims Packet for each Litigation Claimant identified in the EEOC Proofs of Claim (as defined below) filed in the Bankruptcy Cases. The Trustee shall not send any General Litigation Claims Packets to the EEOC nor shall the EEOC have any responsibility for the dissemination of any General Litigation Claims Packets to any Litigation Claimant.
The EEOC will file two Proofs of Claim in the Bankruptcy Cases: (I) a Proof of Claim for beneficiaries of the EEOC Title VII lawsuit against the Debtors who have not filed a separate Proof of Claim ("POC I"); and (2) a Proof of Claim for beneficiaries of the EEOC Title VII lawsuit against the Debtors who are represented by supplemental counsel or who independently filed separate Proofs of Claim without the assistance of the EEOC ("POC II" and, together with POC I, the "EEOC Proofs of Claim"). For purposes of the distribution of the Title VII Litigation Packets, the EEOC Proofs of Claim will list the EEOC Title VII Beneficiari~ and identify those beneficiaries who are represented by supplemental counsel. Any party objecting to the sufficiency of the identification of the beneficiaries or their characterization as being represented by supplemental counsel, shall notifY the Trustee and the EEOC in writing of the objection within twenty days of the date on which the EEOC first files the EEOC Proofs of Claim. (b) Upon receipt of the Title VII Litigation Packets, the EEOC shall forward each Title VII Litigation Claims Packet received from the Trustee to each Title VII Beneficiary's last known address or to their supplemental counsel, as applicable. Those EEOC Title VII Beneficiaries who are unrepresented by supplemental counsel who have not filed a separate Proof of Claim and those EEOC Title VII Beneficiaries who are unrepresented but filed separate Proofs of Claim without the assistance of the EEOC shall return their completed Title VII Litigation Claim Forms to the EEOC. EEOC shall in turn forward completed, returned Title VII Litigation Claim Forms (and any other documentation included by the EEOC Title VII Beneficiary with the Title VII Litigation Claim Form) to the Trustee.
Supplemental counsel shall be responsible for returniog Title VII Litigation Claim Forms completed on behalf of their clients directly to the Trustee. The EEOC shall not be responsible for returning to the Trustee completed Title VII Litigation Claim Forms for EEOC Title VII Beneficiaries represented by supplemental counsel as identified on POC II to the Trustee.
The EEOC or supplemental counsel, as applicable, shall be required to return the applicable Title VII Trust Claim Form provided in the Title VII Litigation Claims Packet they receive within sixty (60) days after receipt, along with documentation evidencing eligibility as set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.3, above. A scanned copy of a signed Title VII Trust Claim Form shall be the equivalent of an original. If the EEOC or supplemental counsel, as applicable, fails to return a Title VII Trust Claim Form on
NY\73876052

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 30 of 35
behalf of a Litigation Claimant so that it is received by the Trustee within such sixty (60) day period, then any Title VII Litigation Claim asserted by such Litigation Claimant shall be disallowed for all purposes hereunder; provided, however, that such disallowance shall not prejudice any claim that may be asserted on a General Trust Claim Form by or on behalf of such Litigation Claimant. For the avoidance of doubt, all Litigation Claims asserted by or on behalf of a Litigation Claimant who does not return any Trust Claim) Forms to the Trustee or have any such Trust Claim Forms returned to the Trustee on such Litigation Claimant's behalf shall be disallowed for all purposes hereunder
(c) The EEOC shall have no obligation to pay any liability of any nature or description arising out of, relating to, or in connection with any Litigation Claim and all Litigation Claimants shall be enjoined from taking any action for the purpose of directly or indirectly collecting, recovering, or receiving payments, satisfaction, or recovery with respect to any Litigation Claim. Further, the EEOC shall be released and held harmless from all obligations and liabilities with respect to the Litigation Claims and no entity, including but not limited to any Litigation Claimant, whether or not such Litigation Claimant is an EEOC Title VII Beneficiary, shall have any right whatsoever at any time to assert any cliilln or cause of action with respect to the Litigation Claims against the EEOC.
5.2 Review Process. The Trustee shall commence reviewing and processing filed General Litigation Claim Forms and Title VII Litigation Claim Forms (collectively, "Trust Claim Form(s)") as and when they are received by the Trustee, and shall complete its initial review of a submitted Trust Claim Form and supporting documentation within twenty-one (21) days after receipt. For each Trust Claim Form that is submitted, the Trustee shall determine whether the claim described therein meets the eligibility requirements of Sections 4.1 of this TDP and the eligibility requirements for each component of such holder's Litigation Claims identified in the Trust Claim Form as set forth in Section 4.3 of this TDP. The Trustee shall allow submitted Litigation Claims that satisfy all eligibility criteria applicable to such Litigation Claim, provided, however, that, if the eligibility requirements of Section 4.1 of this TDP are otherwise met, the Trustee shall only allow those .claim components identified on the Trust Claim Form that meet the eligibility requirements of the subsection of Section 4.3 applicable to such claim.
If a Litigation Claimant submits an incomplete or deficient claim, e.g., the claimant failed to include required documentation or failed to sign the Trust Claim Form, the Trustee shall send a deficiency notice to such Litigation Claimant and the Trustee shall informally and reasonably work with that claimant in an effort to cure any such deficiencies. Litigation Claimants submitting incomplete or deficient claims shall have thirty (30) days to cure a deficiency, and any Litigation Claim that continues to be incomplete or deficient after that thirty (30)-day cure period shall be disallowed, provided, however, that, if the eligibility requirements of Section 4.1 of this TDP are otherwise met, the Trustee shall only disallow claim components identified on the Trust Claim Form that continue to be incomplete or deficient after the thirty (30)-day cure period.
If the holder of a disallowed Litigation Claim wishes to dispute the disallowance of such claim pursuant to Section 5.1 or this Section 5.2, such holder may file a motion in the
NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 31 of 35

Bankruptcy Court seeking an order resolving that dispute (a "Dispute Resolution Motion") within fourteen 14 days of receiving a disallowance notice from the Trust. Any Dispute Resolution Motion should be served on the Trustee as required by Rule 9006-1 of the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware.· For the avoidance of any doubt, the sole remedies that may be sought by a Dispute Resolution Motion are (i) allowance of the asserted Litigation Claim, or, (ii) subject to adequate demonstration of a non-frivolous, cognizable, non-time-barred claim, authorization to file a lawsuit against the Litigation Settlement Trust in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana or the Eastern District of Texas. Following the final allowance of the asserted Litigation Claim by the Bankruptcy Court, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, such Litigation Claim shall be subject to the applicable treatment provided in this TDP.

Once the Trustee has completed review and processing of the submitted Trust Claim Forms, the Trustee will maintain records with the name of every Litigation Claimant, the claim or claims for which he seeks compensation, the evidence submitted in support of the claim or claims, and which claim or claims was/were allowed or disallowed.

5.3 Nominal Claim Values. The Nominal Claim Values for each of the fourteen (14) claim components described in Sections 4.3(a) through (n) are as follows:

•

Trafficking: The valuation of the Liquidated Claims for Trafficking track the

average value apportioned to the TVPRA component of the judgment entered in the

lawsuit styled David v. Signal International, L.L.C. No. 08-cv-01220 (E.D. La.), except

that the claims for punitive damages are capped at fifteen percent (15%) of the amount of

punitive damages in the judgment. The valuation of the Unliquidated Claims for

Trafficking is seventy percent (70%) of the valuation of the Liquidated Claims for

Trafficking. The valuation of Unliquidated Claims for Trafficking against non-Debtor

Released Parties is one thousand dollars ($1,000).

•

Breach of Contract: The valuation of the Liquidated Claims for Breach of

Contract track the average value apportioned to the Breach of Contract component of the

judgment entered in the lawsuit styled David v. Signal International, L.L. C. No. 08-cv-

01220 (E.D. La.), except that the claims for punitive damages are capped at fifteen

percent (15%) of the amount of punitive damages in the judgment. The valuation of the

Unliquidated Claims for Breach of Contract is seventy percent (70%) of the valuation of

the Liquidated Claims for Breach of Contract.

•

Section 1981 Discrimination/Harassment: The valuation of the Liquidated

Claims for Section 1981 Discrimination/Harassment track the average value apportioned

to the Section 1981 Discrimination/Harassment component of the judgment entered in the

lawsuit styled David v. Signal International, L.L.C. No. 08-cv-01220 (E.D. La.), except

that the claims for punitive damages are capped at fifteen percent (15%) of the amount of

punitive damages in the judgment. The valuation of the Unliquidated Claims for Section

1981 Discrimination/Trafficking is seventy percent (70%) of the valuation of the

Liquidated Claims for Section 1981 Discrimination/Harassment, except that Unliquidated

Claims for Section 1981 are included in the Unliquidated EEOC Title VII Claims (Not

Including Retaliation). As such, an Unliquidated Claim for Section 1981

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 32 of 35

Discrimination/Harassment will not be allowed for any Litigation Claimant eligible to recover Unliquidated EEOC Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation) unless the Litigation Claimant's Unliquidated EEOC Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation) is disallowed or such Litigation Claimant otherwise will not receive any recovery on account of its Unliquidated EEOC Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation) pursuant to this TDP.

•

Section 1981 Retaliation: The valuation of the Liquidated Claims for Section

1981 Retaliation track the average value apportioned to the Breach of Contract

component of the judgment entered in the lawsuit styled David v. Signal International,

L.L. C. No. 08-cv-01220 (E.D. La.).

•

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (No Physical Injurv): The valuation of

the Liquidated Claims for liED-No Phy8ical Injury track the average value apportioned to

the liED component of the judgment entered in the lawsuit styled David v. Signal

International, L.L.C. No. 08-cv-01220 (E.D. La.). Known claims for liED-No Physical

Injury are liquidated. There are no known unliquidated claims for liED for which

physical injuries were not suffered.

•

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Physical Injury): All known claims

for liED-Physical Injury life unliquidated. There are no known liquidated claims for

liED for which physical injuries were suffered.

•

False Imprisonment: The valuation of the Liquidated Claims for False

Imprisonment track the average value apportioned to the False Imprisonment component

of the judgment entered in the lawsuit styled David v. Signal International, L.L. C. No.

08-cv-01220 (E.D. La.). The valuation of the Unliquidated Claims for False

Imprisonment is seventy percent (70%) of the valuation of the Liquidated Claims for

False Imprisonment, except capped at $150,000.

•

Assault (Physical Injurv): Known claims for Assault are unliquidated. There are

no known Liquidated Claims for Assault for which physical injuries were suffered.

•

Civil Rights Conspiracy: Known claims for Civil Rights Conspiracy are

unliquidated. There are no known Liquidated Claims for Civil Rights Conspiracy for

which physical injuries were suffered.

•

Fair Labor Standards Act: Known FLSA claims are unliquidated. There are no

known liquidated claims under the FLSA.

•

EEOC Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation): Known Title VII claims are

unliquidated. There are no known liquidated claims under the Title VII.

•

EEOC Title VII Retaliation Claims: Known Title VII claims are unliquidated.

There are no known liquidated claims under the Title VII.

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 33 of 35

•

EEOC Intervenors' Title VII Claims (Not Including Retaliation): Known Title

VII claims are unliquidated. There are no known liquidated claims under the Title VII.

•

Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Known attorneys' fees and costs claims are

unliquidated. There are no known liquidated claims of attorneys' fees and costs.

Each allowed Litigation Claim shall be valued based on the particular components of that claim, as identified in the Trust Claim Form and documentation evidencing eligibility for compensation mandated by Section 4.3 based on the claim(s) timely asserted by or on behalf of the individual claimant (i) in a court oflaw against one or more of the Debtors before the Petition Date, (ii) in a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy Case, or (iii) solely with respect to a Litigation Claim against a non-Debtor Released Party, in the Trust Claim Form. The Trustee then shall determine, based on the tables set forth below, the value associated with each asserted claim component. Such values will be the same for each claim component of an allowed Litigation Claim regardless of the number of Debtors that such claim component is asserted against and whether such claim component (or other claim components) is or may also be asserted against a non-Debtor Released Party; provided that, in the event a Litigation Claimant asserts a Trafficking claim against both a Debtor and a non-Debtor Released Party, those claims shall be considered duplicative and the Litigation Claimant shall only recover on the Trafficking claim asserted against the Debtor. The Trustee will sum the applicable values of all claim components to determine the "Noruinal Claim Value" of that allowed Litigation Claim.
(a) Liquidated Litigation Claims.

Claim Component
Trafficking Section 1981 Discrimination/Harassment Breach of Contract Section 1981 Retaliation liED-No Physical Injury False Imprisonment

ICnldaiivmidVuaalluNe•ominal
$181,000 $179,120
$575,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000

Anticipated Maximum Number of Claimants 5 5
5 1 1 1

(b) Unliquidated Litigation Claims.

Claim Component Trafficking

ICnldaiivmidVuaalluNe•ominal

Anticipated Maximum

Number of

Claimants

$126,700 (against a 344 (against a

Debtor)

debtor)

The values assigned are solely for purposes of the TDP and associated settlement and are without prejudice to the rights of any party in the event that the settlement is not consummated.

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 34 of 35

Claim Component
Breach of Contract liED-Physical Injury False Imprisonment Assault Conspiracy to violate civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985) Fair Labor Standards Act EEOC Title VII Retaliation Claims Section 1981 Discrimination/ Harassment
OR
Title VII Claims (not including retaliation) EEOC Intervenors' Title VII claims (not including retaliation) Non-profit attorneys' fees and costs- SPLC Non-profit attorneys' fees and costs-EJC

Individual Nominal Claim Value*
$1,000 (against a nonDebtor Released Party)
$402,500 $800,000 $150,000 $800,000 $800,000

Anticipated Maximum Number of Claimants 0 (against a nonDebtor Released Party) 227 I 4 I I

$13,000

382

$800,000

2

$117,500

473

$225,000

9

$500,000

12

$27,000

21

5.4 Distributions to Holders of Allowed Litigation Claims.

(a) Distributions Generally. A Holder of an allowed Litigation Claim shall be entitled to receive his Pro Rata Trust Share (as defined below) of the Litigation Claim Payment Fund distributed by the Trustee. The "Pro Rata Trust Share" shall mean the proportion, expressed as a percentage, that the total of the Nominal Claim Values of all allowed Litigation Claim components held by a given Litigation Claimant bears to the aggregate of all Nominal Claim Values for all allowed Litigation Claims. All distributions made by the Trustee shall be made in accordance with, and shall be governed by, Article VIII of the Plan (including, without limitation, paragraph C. thereof relating to withholding oftaxes).

(b) Timing of Distributions. The Trustee shall distribute payments to Holders of allowed Litigation Claims within fourteen (14) days after the review and allowance or disallowance of all timely-submitted Trust Claim Forms has been completed on a final basis; provided, however, that to the extent that the total Val\le of the Litigation Settlement Trust Assets has not yet been received by the Trust such that the Litigation

NY\7387605.2

Case 15-11498-MFW Doc 555-1 Filed 11/24/15 Page 35 of 35
Claim Payment Fund is not yet fully funded, i.e., because certain of the underlying Litigation Settlement Trust Assets consist of amounts that may be paid incrementally over time, the Trust shall make an initial distribution based on the amount then-currently held in the Litigation Claim Payment Fund. The Trust, in consultation with the TAC, shall make additional distributions to Holders of allowed Litigation Claims as and when additional funds are received by the Litigation Settlement Trust in amounts sufficient to make a distribution practicable, until such time as the total value of Litigation Settlement Trust Assets has been received by the Trust and distributed on a pro rata basis to all holders of allowed Litigation Claims, excluding portions set aside for the Trustee's expenses as set forth in the Litigation Trust Agreement.
Section VI MISCELLANEOUS 6.1 Amendments. The Trustee, with notice to the Litigation Settlement TAC, may amend, modif'y, delete, or add to any provision of this TDP, other than Section 5.3, which may not be amended, modified, or deleted, other than as set forth in Section 6.2, below. 6.2 Severability. Should any provision in this TDP be determined to be unenforceable, such determination shall in no way limit or affect the enforceability and operative effect of any and all other provisions of this TDP, provided, however, that to the extent that Section 5.3 is held to be unenforceable, then the Trustee, Litigation Settlement TAC, and representatives of holders of Litigation Claims, along with any holders of Litigation Claims that submitted Proofs of Claim in the Bankruptcy Cases but who are not represented by counsel, shall meet and confer and reach agreement on revisions to Section, 5.3, as applicable, that would render that Section (or those Sections) enforceable. 6.3 Governing Law. Except for the purposes of determining the liquidated value of any Litigation Claim, administration of this TDP shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware.
NY\7387605.2

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 1 of 58
2000E,PROTO
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−00557−SM−DEK

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC Assigned to: Judge Susie Morgan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III
Case in other court: Mississippi Southern, 1:11−cv−00179
Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/01/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Julie Steptoe Bean U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2067 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: julie.bean@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert A. Canino U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm (Dallas) 207 S. Houston Street 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214−253−2700 Email: robert.canino@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anica C. Jones U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Nashville) 220 Athens Way Suite 350 Nashville, TN 37228 615−736−2105 Fax: 901/544−0111 Email: anica.jones@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles E. Guerrier EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205−2881 205−212−2100 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2012

Gerald L Miller U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 2 of 58
Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2047 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: gerald.miller@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marsha Lynn Rucker EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION − Birmingham Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205−2881 205−212−2046 Fax: 205/212−2041 Email: marsha.rucker@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Lee Murray U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2043 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: steven.murray@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ylda Marisol Kopka U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2062 Email: ylda.kopka@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan

represented by Sheila A. Bedi Southern Poverty Law Center (Jackson) 921 North President St. Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 948−8882 Email: sheila.a.bedi@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Fritzsche Southern Poverty Law Center (Atlanta) Immigrant Justice Project 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 404−521−6700 Fax: 404/221−5857 Email: tom.fritzsche@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 3 of 58
Alan Bruce Howard Crowell &Moring, LLP (New York) 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212−803−4042 Email: ahoward@crowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chandra S. Bhatnagar American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New York/Broad) 125 Broad St. 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−519−7840 Email: cbhatnagar@aclu.org TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner Southern Poverty Law Center (Atlanta) Immigrant Justice Project 1989 College Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30317 404−521−6700 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504−486−8982 Email: eden.heilman@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler Crowell &Moring, LLP (New York) 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212−803−4012 Email: hsandler@crowell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 x235 Fax: 212−966−4303 Email: isuriyopas@aaldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Bjarnson Sahn Ward Coschignano &Baker, PLLC 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard Suite 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516−228−1300 Email: jbjarnson@swcblaw.com

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 4 of 58

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 1055 St. Charles Ave. Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−486−8982 Fax: 504−486−8947 Email: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 233 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−521−6700 Email: naomi.tsu@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 5 of 58

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Kurian David

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 6 of 58

Intervenor Plaintiff Thanasekar Chellappan

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Muruganantham Kandhasamy

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 7 of 58

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Kuldeep Singh

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 8 of 58

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Krishan Kumar

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 9 of 58

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Hemant Khuttan

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 10 of 58

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Sony Vasudevan Sulekha

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Kechuru Dhananjaya

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 11 of 58

TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 12 of 58

PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 13 of 58
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Signal International, LLC

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Email: ehangartner@hanrylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R. Rydberg Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: lrydberg@hanrylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Fax: 504−581−5983 Email: aweinberger@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 14 of 58

Email: broux@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dominic Joseph Gianna Aaron &Gianna, PLC 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 (504) 569−1800 Email: dgianna@aarongianna.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2014

Elham Rabbani Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: erabbani@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D. Ungar Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: hungar@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Cornblatt Patricia A. Bollman, APLC 3636 S. I−10 Service Road West Metairie, LA 70001 504−218−5887 Email: jcornblatt25@gmail.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P. Hasenkampf Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell &Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: mhasenkampf@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Anne F. Bollman Patricia A. Bollman, APLC P. O. Box 13707 New Orleans, LA 70185 504−218−5887 Email: patricia@bollmanfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Third Party Plaintiff Signal International, LLC

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 15 of 58

Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dominic Joseph Gianna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D. Ungar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L. Cornblatt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Anne F. Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Third Party Defendant Global Resources, Inc.
Third Party Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company TERMINATED: 06/27/2012

represented by Global Resources, Inc. 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 PRO SE

Date Filed 04/20/2011
05/06/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Signal International, LLC, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 04/20/2011)
2 MOTION to Intervene by Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kurian David (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Vijayan and Kadakkarappally EEOC Cause Determinations, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Class Complaint in Intervention)(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 16 of 58

05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/09/2011 05/09/2011
05/09/2011 05/11/2011 05/11/2011

3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
4 MOTION for Daniel Werner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing (GA and NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
5 MOTION for Naomi Tsu to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing (GA and CA))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
6 MOTION for Thomas P. Fritzsche to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (GA))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
7 MOTION for Alan B. Howard to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
8 MOTION for Hugh D. Sandler to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
9 MOTION for Joseph R. Bjarnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
10 MOTION for Chandra S. Bhatnagar to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
11 MOTION for Ivy Suriyopas to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #4 and #5: no case number on documents. Attorney does not need to re−file, but is reminded to review PDFs before filing. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/09/2011)
12 ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on May 9, 2011 (King, Steve) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/09/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Daniel Werner receipt number 0538−1858979 $ 100 (Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/09/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Naomi Tsu receipt number 0538−1860786 $ 100 (Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/11/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Thomas P. Fritzsche receipt number 0538−1860796 $ 100 (Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/11/2011)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 17 of 58

05/12/2011 05/17/2011 05/19/2011 05/20/2011 05/20/2011 05/24/2011 05/25/2011
05/25/2011 05/25/2011 05/26/2011
05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011

Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Joseph R. Bjarnson $ 100, receipt number 34643009773; by Hugh D. Sandler $100, receipt number 34643009772; and by Alan B. Howard $100, receipt number 34643009771. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/12/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Ivy Suriyopas $ 100, receipt number 34643009865. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/17/2011)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles E. Guerrier on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/19/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by C Bhatnagar $ 100, receipt number 34643009938. (avm) Modified on 5/20/2011 to correct spelling of name(avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/20/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to pro hac fee paid this date: the docket entry has been edited to correct the spelling of the attorneys name. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/20/2011)
14 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/24/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #14: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Document is undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. ADDITIONAL DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #14: U.L.Cr.R.47(B) requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. ADDITIONAL DOCKET ANNOTATION : court staff advised attorney to enter a notice of appearance as attorney did not add himself to the case upon filing of this document. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/25/2011)
15 NOTICE of Mailing of Waiver of Service to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Murray, Steven) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/25/2011)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Anica Clarissa Conner on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Conner, Anica) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/25/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #16: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Document is undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings.(avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #15: incorrect docket event used. Attorney is directed to refile using the correct event for "request for waiver of service". (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
17 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Signal International, c/o CT Corporation System, 645 Lakeland East Drive, Suite 101, Flowood, MS 39232 on May 20, 2011 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Waiver of Service due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, pp. 1−3)(Murray, Steven) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Hal D. Ungar on behalf of Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
19 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2 MOTION to Intervene by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 18 of 58

05/27/2011
05/27/2011
05/27/2011 06/10/2011 06/14/2011 07/10/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011
07/20/2011 07/22/2011 07/22/2011 07/25/2011
08/01/2011

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #19: Proposed orders are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e−mail (Courts Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/27/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2 MOTION to Intervene. Replies due by 6/14/2011. No further written order will issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on May 27, 2011 (King, Steve) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/27/2011)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Julie Steptoe Bean on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/27/2011)
21 NOTICE of Filing of Return of Service by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 06/10/2011)
22 Rebuttal re 14 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 06/14/2011)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signal International, LLC waiver sent on 5/20/2011, answer due 7/19/2011. (Murray, Steven) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/10/2011)
24 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/19/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #24: Memoranda in support should be filed separately and shown as a related document to the motion (Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec. 3.A.7). Attorney is directed to file the Memorandum as a separate document and link it to the appropriate document. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/20/2011)
25 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 24 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/20/2011)
26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal). Added MOTION to Change Venue on 7/25/2011 (avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/22/2011)
27 MEMORANDUM in Support re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule filed by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/22/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #26: This document requests several motion reliefs. Every motion relief should be selected from the list of motion titles or each relief docketed separately. The same PDF document may be used for all motion filing entries. It is not necessary to refile as court staff has made the necessary correction and added a motion relief to change venue. Attorney is advised to follow this procedure in future filings. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/25/2011)
28 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 24 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/01/2011)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 19 of 58

08/02/2011
08/05/2011 08/08/2011 08/09/2011
08/11/2011 08/11/2011 08/12/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/24/2011 08/31/2011 08/31/2011 08/31/2011 09/07/2011

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #28: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Document is undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/02/2011)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/05/2011)
30 REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) Modified on 8/9/2011 to add document link to original motion 24 (avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/08/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #30: Incorrect linkage made. Reply to Response should be linked to Motion for More Definite Statment, as all related filings to motions (using the "Responses and Replies" category, with the exception of "Response to Order") should be linked back to the original motion. Court staff has made the correction. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/09/2011)
31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/11/2011)
32 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/11/2011)
33 REPLY to Response to Motion re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/12/2011)
34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/18/2011)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support re 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/18/2011)
36 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/24/2011)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer, 36 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for a More Definitive Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) Modified on 8/31/2011 to correct document linkage to motion #31 to strike #30(avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/31/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #37: office of J Bean advised this reply to response was linked to the incorrect motion; court staff has edited the docket entry and the document links to make this a reply to response to 31 motion to strike 30 , and to 36 memorandum in opposition to 31 . (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/31/2011)
38 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/31/2011)
39 REPLY to Response to Motion re 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 20 of 58

09/09/2011 11/02/2011 01/04/2012
01/05/2012
01/05/2012 01/06/2012 01/24/2012 02/03/2012 02/15/2012 02/15/2012 02/16/2012
02/23/2012 02/23/2012 02/24/2012

(Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 09/07/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #39: Incorrect event chosen. Based on the title and document contains case law, the event code "Memorandum in Support of Motion" should have been used. Attorney is not required to refile. (RLW) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 09/09/2011)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Marsha Lynn Rucker on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rucker, Marsha) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 11/02/2011)
41 ** DISREGARD − SEE DOCKET ENTRY #42 ** MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue Supplemental Authority filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order in David v. Signal)(Guerrier, Charles) Modified on 1/5/2012 (avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/04/2012)
42 NOTICE of supplemental authority by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Authority)(Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/05/2012)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #41: document has been filed as a Notice; see docket entry #42. Court staff has termed the link to the original motion. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/05/2012)
43 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 42 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/06/2012)
44 ORDER granting 2 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on January 24, 2012 (King, Steve) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/24/2012)
45 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kurian David.(Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/03/2012)
46 MOTION to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rucker, Marsha) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/15/2012)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support re 46 MOTION to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E correspondences between EEOC and Signal re: initial disclosures)(Rucker, Marsha) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/15/2012)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #46 and #47: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Main documents are undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/16/2012)
48 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/23/2012)
49 RESPONSE in Support re 46 MOTION to Compel filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/23/2012)
50 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Intervenors' Complaint by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/24/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 21 of 58

02/24/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012 03/02/2012 03/02/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/09/2012
03/12/2012 03/12/2012

51 MEMORANDUM in Support re 50 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Intervenors' Complaint filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/24/2012)
TEXT ORDER finding as moot 26 Motion to Stay Case NO FURHTER WRITTEN ORDER WILL FOLLOW. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 02/29/2012 (Guirola, Louis) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/29/2012)
52 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; denying 34 Motion to Strike as moot. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 2/29/12 (PKS) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/29/2012)
District Transfer Out to the Eastern District of Louisiana. (PKS) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/29/2012)
53 Case transferred in from District of Mississippi Southern; Case Number 1:11−cv−00179. Electronic file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received (jtd) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
54 Notice of Related Case(s) 08−cv−01220 of Possible Collateral Proceeding by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rucker, Marsha) Modified text on 3/5/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/02/2012)
55 **DEFICIENT**NOTICE of Appearance by Eden B. Heilman on behalf of Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/5/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/02/2012)
56 **DEFICIENT**Notice of Related Case(s) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.1 by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan of related case(s) 08−cv−01220. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/5/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/02/2012)
57 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 54 Notice (Other). **Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Notice of Related Case. Clerk took corrective action by either changing the event.** (mm, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
58 Notice of Related Case(s) by Signal International, LLC of related case(s) 08−1220. (Ungar, Hal) Modified case info on 3/6/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
59 Notice of Related Case(s) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan of related case(s) 08−1220. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
60 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 58 Notice of Related Case(s). **Filing attorney entered incorrect case number for related case. Clerk corrected info. No further action necessary.** (mm, ) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
61 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Case transferred to Judge Jay C. Zainey for all further proceedings. Judge Helen G. Berrigan no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 3/2/12.(plh, )(NEF: County, DEK) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
62 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Enrolling Eden Heilman as Counsel for Plaintiff−Intervenors)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/12/2012 to edit text (rll, ). (Entered: 03/09/2012)
63 ORDER granting 62 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 3/12/2012. (mm, ) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
64 MOTION to Deny consolidation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 3/28/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission)(Rucker, Marsha) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/13/2012: # 2 Memorandum in Support) (gbw, ). Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 22 of 58

03/12/2012 03/12/2012 03/12/2012
03/12/2012 03/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/13/2012
03/13/2012
03/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/14/2012 03/14/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/21/2012

65 ERROR: FILED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 64 MOTION Deny consolidation. (Rucker, Marsha) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
66 ERROR: SEE DOC. #63** NOTICE of Appearance by Eden B. Heilman on behalf of Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
67 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Fritzsche. (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3428341) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas Fritzsche, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
68 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 50 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Intervenors' Complaint. (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
69 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 65 Response/Memorandum in Support of Motion. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document #64. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is needed. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
70 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 66 Notice of Appearance. A deficiency notice was previously sent to refile as a motion &order. Per Doc. #62 &#63, the motion &order was already granted. Notice of appearance was not necessary. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
71 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 67 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Fritzsche (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3428341)Document contains incorrect Section. All future pleadings must reflect Section A (Jay C. Zainey) and Magistrate Judge 3 (Daniel E. Knowles, III).(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
72 ORDER In light of the potential overlap between the discrimination claims brought in this lawsuit and in Civil Action 08−1220, the Plaintiffs in this matter, including the EEOC, are ORDERED to participate in the 08−1220 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Knowles scheduled for 4/3/12 10:00 AM in New Orleans. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
73 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III.Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(mm, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
74 Order Vacating Case Referral to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/13/2012.(gbw, )(NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
75 ORDER granting 48 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Charles E. Guerrier terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/14/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
76 ORDER granting 67 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Fritzsche. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/14/2012(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
77 ORDER denying 24 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying as moot 31 Motion to Strike ; denying 50 Motion for More Definite Statement. Deadlines set herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
78 ORDER Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
79 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven Lee Murray on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Murray, Steven) Modified on 3/22/2012 (gbw, ). (acceptable per case mgr.) (Entered: 03/21/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 23 of 58

03/22/2012 03/23/2012 03/23/2012
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012 03/28/2012 03/29/2012 03/30/2012 03/30/2012
03/30/2012 04/02/2012 04/02/2012 04/03/2012 04/05/2012
04/11/2012
04/13/2012

80 DEFICIENT** NOTICE of Appearance by Gerald L Miller on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 3/23/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/22/2012)
81 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 78 Order in Support of Consolidation of David and This Case and Opposing Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Consolidation (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
82 Memorandum by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 78 Order in Opposition of Consolidation of the David and EEOC Cases and in Support of the Commission's Motion to Deny Consolidation (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
83 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, re 78 Order in Support of 64 MOTION Deny consolidation. (Bean, Julie) Modified on 3/26/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/23/2012)
84 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
85 Response/Reply by Signal International, LLC Supporting Consolidation re 78 Order (Ungar, Hal) Modified on 3/28/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
86 Response/Reply by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan Opposing Consolidation re 78 Order. (Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 3/28/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
87 ORDER granting 84 Motion to Appear as Additional Counsel Gerald L. Miller. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/27/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
88 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Meredith Stewart by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
89 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 46 MOTION to Compel Initial Disclosures. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
90 ANSWER to 45 Intervenor Complaint with Jury Demand of Signal International, LLC, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Global Resources, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company by Signal International, LLC.(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
91 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Signal International, LLC.(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
92 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Enroll Meredith Stewart as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/30/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
93 ORDER granting 64 Motion to Deny Consolidation, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
94 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Settlement Conference held on 4/3/2012. (mm, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
95 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susie Morgan for all further proceedings. Judge Jay C. Zainey no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/4/2012.(gbw, )(NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
96 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Dominic J. Gianna, Erin Casey Hangartner, Alan Dean Weinberger and Elham R. Rabbani by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
97 ORDER granting 96 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Erin Casey Hangartner,Dominic Joseph Gianna,Elham Rabbani,Alan Dean Weinberger for Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/12/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/13/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 24 of 58

04/13/2012
04/16/2012
04/16/2012
04/16/2012
04/18/2012 04/20/2012
04/20/2012 04/20/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012
04/23/2012
04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/25/2012

98 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Daniel Werner (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3471040) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Declaration of Daniel Werner)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
99 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alan Howard (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3473915) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
100 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Hugh Sandler (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3473916) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
101 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Joseph Bjarnson (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3473918) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
102 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Daniel Werner. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/17/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively, MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 5/9/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 4/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/20/2012)
104 ORDER granting 99 Motion for Alan Bruce Howard to Appear Pro Hac Vice for intervening plas. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/12. (bbc, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
105 ORDER granting 100 Motion for Hugh Daniel Sandler to Appear Pro Hac Vice for intervening plas. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/12. (bbc, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
107 ORDER granting 101 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Joseph Ray Bjarnson. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
106 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Chandra Shekhara Bhatnagar (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3481105) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Declaration)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
108 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. Filing attorney incorrectly referred this motion to magistrate judge. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
109 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Global Resources, Inc. on 4/11/2012, answer due 6/11/2012. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 5/9/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
111 ORDER granting 106 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Chandra Shekhara Bhatnagar. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/25/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 25 of 58

05/01/2012 05/08/2012
05/08/2012 05/08/2012
05/08/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012
05/11/2012 05/21/2012
05/21/2012 05/22/2012 05/22/2012

112 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, 110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint . (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
113 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Document Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 5/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
114 **DEFICIENT** REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 5/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
115 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 113 REPLY to Response. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'Motion for Leave to File Document'. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. In addition, filing attorney did not select category 'Proposed Pleading' when attaching document for which leave to file is being requested. Clerk took corrective action. Lastly, the title of the attached proposed order should not include the word Proposed but only reflect Order on the actual document. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
116 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
117 ORDER granting 113 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/10/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
118 REPLY to Response in Support to Motion filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint . (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
119 ORDER granting 116 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/10/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
120 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, and 110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint . (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
121 ORDER Status Conference set for 6/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan.FURTHER ORDERED that each party in this matter shall submit a letter to the Court as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/11/2012.(mm, )(NEF: DEK) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
122 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Ivy O. Suriyopas (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3521697) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Declaration)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
123 Application for Refund of Electronic Fees filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan for the following reason: duplicate charge; receipt number 256OKNL6. (Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
124 ORDER granting 122 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ivy O. Suriyopas.. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/22/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
125 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Scottsdale Insurance Company on 4/17/2012, answer due 6/18/2012. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 26 of 58

05/31/2012
06/04/2012
06/11/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/15/2012
06/15/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/27/2012 06/28/2012 07/03/2012 07/09/2012 07/20/2012
07/23/2012 07/26/2012

126 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Move for Class Certification by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
127 ORDER granting 126 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Move for Class Certification. Deadline to move for class certification will be set by further Order of this Court. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/4/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
128 ORDER Status Conference set for 6/15/2012 at 10:00 a.m. is reset to 10:30 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Morgan.(cbn) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
129 Letter to Court from Julie Bean (EEOC) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
130 Letter to Court from Erin Casey Hangartner (Middleberg) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
131 Letter to Court from Thomas Fritzsche (SPLC) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
132 ORDER Setting Hearing on 46 MOTION to Compel : Motion set for SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS 6/27/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/15/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
133 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/15/2012. Counsel to comply with deadlines as set forth in document. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
134 Letter from Julie Bean in response to 133 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
135 Letter form Erin Hangartner in response to 133 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
136 Letter from Naomi Tsu in response to 133 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
137 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice as to Scottsdale Insurance Company by Signal International, LLC. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
138 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to 3rd party pla. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
139 ORDER denying 46 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/3/2012. (my, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
140 ORDER: The deadline for filing any motion for class certification shall be no later than 10/15/12 and noticed for submission on 11/21/12. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
141 MOTION to Bifurcate by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 8/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 07/20/2012)
142 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct time is set for 8/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
143 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on June 15, 2012 before Judge Susie Morgan, also present was Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 27 of 58

07/27/2012
07/27/2012 07/30/2012
07/30/2012 08/03/2012 08/07/2012 08/07/2012 08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/16/2012

Restriction set for 10/24/2012. (rsg) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
144 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Resources, Inc. by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Ungar, Hal) Modified on 7/30/2012 (clm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2012: # 6 Proposed Order, # 7 Notice of Last Known Address) (clm, ). (Main Document 144 replaced on 8/7/2012) (cbn, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/7/2012) (cbn, ). (Entered: 07/27/2012)
145 **ERROR:DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT; SEE REC. DOC. 144**NOTICE by Signal International, LLC of Last Known Address for Global Resources, Inc. (Ungar, Hal) Modified on 7/30/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 07/27/2012)
146 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 144 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Resources, Inc. . Filing attorney should have selected motion as an Exparte/Consent Motion. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk has removed hearing date. In addition, filing attorney did not include a proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. Lastly, name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
147 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 145 Notice (Other). Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to ' Motion for Entry of Default'. Clerk took corrective action, see Rec Doc 144. No further action is needed. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
148 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− First Amended Complaint, # 2Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified text on 8/6/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/03/2012)
149 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
150 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
151 ORDER granting 144 Motion for Entry of Default as to 3rd party defendant Global Resources, Inc. Signed by clerk (cbn) (CC to Global Resources 8/16/12) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
152 ORDER granting 148 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/7/2012. (caa, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
153 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Signal International, LLC filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(caa, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
154 Summons Issued as to Signal International, LLC. (caa, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
155 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order )(Miller, Gerald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/16/2012: # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply) (clm, ). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
156 **ERROR: DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED SEPARATELY; SEE REC. DOC. 155**REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/16/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
157 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 156 Reply to Response to Motion. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document 155 MOTION for Leave to File Reply. Clerk took corrective action. No

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 28 of 58

08/17/2012
08/18/2012 08/18/2012 08/21/2012
08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/22/2012 08/22/2012 08/31/2012 08/31/2012 09/06/2012
09/12/2012
09/18/2012 10/15/2012

further action is needed. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
158 DEFICIENT** MOTION for Discovery (Expedited) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/12/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−EEOC First Interrogatories, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/20/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/17/2012)
159 ORDER granting 155 Motion for Leave to File reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/17/12. (cbn) (Entered: 08/18/2012)
160 REPLY of pla to Response to Motion re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (cbn) (Entered: 08/18/2012)
161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/5/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− EEOC First Interrogatories, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit Notice of Certification)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
162 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Expedite Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
163 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 162 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Expedite Discovery . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
164 ORDER denying 162 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/22/12. (plh, ) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
165 ORDER that the 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 9/5/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/22/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
166 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
167 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) : Motion RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 9/12/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/31/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
168 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or, In The Alternative, To Restrict Intervention by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 9/26/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
169 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 9/12/2012 re 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ORDERED that the EEOC's 161 Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
170 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 168 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or, In The Alternative, To Restrict Intervention . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 11/7/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 29 of 58

10/16/2012 10/16/2012 10/30/2012 11/05/2012
11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/07/2012
11/07/2012
11/09/2012 11/15/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/21/2012

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention, # 2 Proposed Pleading Proposed First Amended Complaint in Intervention, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified hrg time on 10/16/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/15/2012)
172 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention. Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct time is 11:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
173 ORDER that the 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 11/7/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/16/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
174 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
175 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
176 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/6/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
177 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Further Support filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
178 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 11/7/2012 re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. ORDERED that Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Motion for Leave to File Their First Amended Complaint in Intervention 171 is GRANTED. (plh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
179 FIRST AMENDED Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by Sabulal Vijayan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Thanasekar Chellappan, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Kuldeep Singh, Krishan Kumar, Hemant Khuttan, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Palanyandi Thangamani, Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
180 DEFICIENT** NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− EEOC v Cintas Corp. 6th Cir. opinion)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 11/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/09/2012)
181 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Supplemental Authority, # 2 Exhibit EEOC v. Cintas Opinion, # 3 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
182 ORDER granting 181 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
183 Notice of supplemental authority filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
184 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint in Intervention For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 12/19/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/23/2012 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2012: # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, #

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 30 of 58

11/27/2012
11/29/2012 12/10/2012 12/11/2012
12/18/2012 12/19/2012 12/20/2012 04/09/2013
05/14/2013
05/20/2013
05/28/2013 05/30/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013

6 Exhibit D) (cbn, ). (Entered: 11/21/2012)
185 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplement Memorandum Supporting Partial Motion for Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to LR 7.4 Solely to Supply Omitted Exhibits by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit "A", # 3 Exhibit "B", # 4 Exhibit "C", # 5 Exhibit "D")(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
186 ORDER granting 185 Motion for Leave to Supplement. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/28/12. (cbn) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
187 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 184 MOTION to Dismiss of First Amended Complaint in Intervention . Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim FRCP 12(b)(6). Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
188 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 184 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint in Intervention for Failure to State a Claim . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
189 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum Supporting Partial Motion for Dismissal For Failure to State a Claim by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
190 ORDER granting 189 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
191 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 184 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint in Intervention for Failure to State a Claim. (cbn) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
192 MOTION Protection from Delay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 6/5/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. a to Memorandum− EEOC First Interrogatories, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2013: # 3 Exhibit) (clm, ). (Entered: 04/09/2013)
193 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 192 MOTION Protection from Delay . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
194 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part 103 Motion to Strike ; granting in part 110 Motion to Strike. Signal International shall re−urge its answers and affirmative defenses within 14 days of entry of this Order, amending both pleadings to correct the issues described in the Court's order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
195 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 192 MOTION Protection from Delay of Litigation. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
196 NOTICE of Intent Not to File a Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 195 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 5/31/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/30/2013)
197 ORDER denying as moot 168 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
198 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 192 Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/3/2013. (tsf) (NEF: Mag Jdg Knowles) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 31 of 58

06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/06/2013
06/11/2013 07/03/2013 07/03/2013
07/03/2013 07/15/2013 07/16/2013 07/16/2013 07/17/2013 07/23/2013 07/23/2013
07/23/2013

199 ANSWER to 153 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Signal International, LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
200 Statement by Signal International, LLC (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
201 Response and Objection to 200 Statement of Defendant Signal International, LLC by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Werner, Daniel) Modified on 6/7/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/06/2013)
202 ORDER AND REASONS denying Signal International, LLC's motion to sever 1196 in Civil Action 08−1220. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
203 DEFICIENT** NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 198 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Notice of Filing of EEOC Proposed Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/3/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/03/2013)
204 NOTICE by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 203 Notice (Other) Joining Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions Filing of Proposed Protective Order. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
205 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/5/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/03/2013)
206 ORDER AND REASONS denying the David Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (in limited part) in Civil Action No. 08−1220, Rec. Doc. 1355. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/15/2013. (NEF: MJ Knowles) (tsf) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
207 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 7/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit Koch Foods Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
208 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 7/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
209 ORDER Setting Hearing on 207 MOTION for Protective Order , 208 MOTION for Protective Order : Motions set for ORAL HEARING 7/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/17/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
210 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 207 MOTION for Protective Order . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
211 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 208 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B− e−mail, # 3 Exhibit C− e−mail, # 4 Exhibit D− e−mail, # 5 Exhibit E− e−mail, # 6 Exhibit F− e−mail, # 7 Exhibit G− e−mail, # 8 Exhibit H− e−mail, # 9 Exhibit I− e−mail, # 10 Exhibit J− e−mail, # 11 Exhibit K− e−mail, # 12 Exhibit L− e−mail, # 13 Exhibit M− e−mail)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
212 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 32 of 58

07/24/2013
07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/26/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013
07/29/2013 07/29/2013
07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/31/2013
08/01/2013 08/09/2013 08/12/2013 08/14/2013

Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 207 MOTION for Protective Order and RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 208 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Signal's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 7/24/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/23/2013)
213 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File / Substitute Signal's Memorandum Opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
214 ORDER granting 213 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/24/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
215 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 207 MOTION for Protective Order . (plh, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
216 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Patricia A. Bollman by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/29/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/26/2013)
217 NOTICE of Objection of Signal's Intent to File Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 211 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
218 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
219 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Patricia A. Bollman by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
220 NOTICE of Supplemental Objection to Signal's Intent to File Reply. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 218 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B− e−mail)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
221 ORDER granting 218 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/30/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
222 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 208 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(plh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
223 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 7/31/2013, taking under advisement 207 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 208 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Signal International, LLC. (caa, ) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
224 ORDER granting 219 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record Patricia Anne F. Bollman for Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
225 DOCUMENT STRICKEN** NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Service of Discovery on Defendant. (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/12/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/09/2013)
226 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 225 Notice (Other). Document has been stricken pursuant to Rule 5(d) of the FRCP. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
227 Notice of Related Case(s) (Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha,

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 33 of 58

08/19/2013
08/22/2013 08/24/2013 09/03/2013
09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/09/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013

Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
228 ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING IN PART 141 MOTION to Bifurcate filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but DENIED to the extent it seeks a determination of its hostile work environment pattern or practice claim and its punitive damages claim in Phase I. The EEOC is ORDERED to submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order, and a memorandum in support of its proposal, for Phase I and Phase II within fourteen (14) days of this Order as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
229 Response by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 227 Notice of Related Case(s). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− SPLC Press Release)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/23/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/22/2013)
230 First Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/24/2013)
231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 9/25/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 2− Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit A− EEOC Memorialization of Rule 26f Conference, # 4 Exhibit B− Intervenors Memorialization of Rule 26f Conference, # 5 Exhibit C− Signal's Initial Disclosures, # 6 Exhibit D− Signal's Supp Initial Disclosures, # 7 Exhibit E− EEOC Second Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit F− First Request for Production, # 9 Exhibit G− EEOC Second Request for Production, # 10 Exhibit H− 8−23−13 e−mail, # 11 Exhibit I− 8−26−13 e−mail from Signal, # 12 Exhibit J− 8−26−13 e−mail from EEOC, # 13 Exhibit K− List of Claimants, # 14 Exhibit L− Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
232 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 228 Order by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/10/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/09/2013)
233 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer /Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/25/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit B − Email, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
234 EXPARTE MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
235 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 234 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents. Filing attorney should have selected Yes at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
236 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 234 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Signal Responses to EEOC's Second Interrogatories)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
237 ORDER that the 207 Motion for Protective Order; and 208 Motion for Protective Order are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/10/13. (plh, ) Modified doc type on 9/10/2013 (plh, ). (Entered: 09/10/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 34 of 58

09/10/2013 09/10/2013
09/10/2013 09/11/2013 09/17/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/20/2013 09/20/2013 09/23/2013
09/24/2013 09/24/2013 09/25/2013

238 ORDER granting 234 Motion to Expedite. ORDERED that the 233 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/10/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
239 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
240 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 228 Order, 231 Motion for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/11/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/10/2013)
241 ORDER granting 232 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/10/13. (cbn) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
242 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 228 Order, 231 Motion for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/18/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/17/2013)
243 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
244 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Response and Objections to EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
245 STRICKEN − PER ORDER, DOC 250: NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Notice of Filing of Proposed Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Protective Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 9/25/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)
246 STRICKEN − PER ORDER, DOC 250: NOTICE by Signal International, LLC re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, of Proposed Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Signal International, L.L.C.'s Proposed Protective Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/25/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)
247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 10/9/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − EEOC First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Affidavit of Erin Hangartner, # 4 Exhibit 3 − 9−20−13 Email, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
248 ORDER that the 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is SET FOR ORAL HEARING on 10/9/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/24/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
249 DEFICIENT** OBJECTIONS by Signal International, LLC re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Application for T Nonimmigrant Status)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/26/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/24/2013)
250 ORDER that 245 , 246 Notices of Filing of Proposed Protective Order are STRICKEN; FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer no later than 10 days from the date of this Order to confect a protective order in conformity with this Court's reasoning in its Order dated 9/10/2013, and no later than 10 days from said date, the parties shall file said protective order for this Court's approval. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(lag, ) (Entered: 09/25/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 35 of 58

09/26/2013 09/26/2013
09/27/2013 09/27/2013 09/27/2013 09/30/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013
10/02/2013
10/03/2013

251 ORDER AND REASONS granting 184 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/26/13. (cbn) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 10/23/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Application for T Nonimmigrant Status, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
253 ORDER granting 244 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Signals Response and Objections to EEOCs Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order, on or before 9/24/2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/26/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
254 ORDER: Conference set for 10/10/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan for the purpose of discussing case management orders and other matters. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/27/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
255 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines , MOTION to Continue by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/27/2013)
256 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/30/2013)
257 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response, and MOTION to Continue Oral Hearing by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/2/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/01/2013)
258 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines, MOTION to Continue Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
259 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Stay Litigation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
260 ORDER that the 256 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Protective Order is GRANTED. The time to file is extended to 11/4/2013. FURTHER ORDERED that the 257 MOTION for Extension of Time and Continuance of Oral Hearing is GRANTED and the 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is RESET FOR ORAL HEARING on 11/6/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/1/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
261 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Sheila A. Bedi as Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
262 ORDERED that the EEOC's 258 Motion in EEOC v. Signal, LLC, et al (12−557) is GRANTED insofar as, (1) the time for Plaintiff to file its opposition to Defendant Signal's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 252) is extended until November 1, 2013, and if Signal wishes to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, it must do so by November 7, 2013; (2) the EEOC shall file its Reply to Signal's Response and Objections to EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Doc. 231) on or before November 1, 2013; (3) the conference presently set for October 10, 2013 is rescheduled for November 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. The date for the conference scheduled in David et al. v. Signal et al.

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 36 of 58

10/04/2013 10/04/2013 10/15/2013
10/18/2013 10/18/2013
10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/24/2013
10/25/2013 10/28/2013

(08−1220) will remain October 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/3/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
263 ORDER that the 259 Motion for Stay of Litigation is DENIED without prejudice for plaintiff's to re−file a motion in the event federal government operations are not restored by November 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/4/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
264 ORDER granting 261 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sheila A. Bedi terminated for intervenor plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/4/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
265 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Signal's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
266 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 10/21/2013 12:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. The status conference on 11/8/2013 will remain in place. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/17/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
267 Second Amended Notice of Related Cases Local Rule 3.1 Statement by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 10/21/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/18/2013)
268 ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/21/2013 12:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan to discuss coordinating discovery with CA 08−1220. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/17/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
271 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/21/2013. Counsel to comply with the deadlines set forth herein. (cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
269 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ENTERED IN C.A. 08−1220, rec. doc. #1424. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/23/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
270 ORDER Status Conference held on 10/21/13 to discuss coordinating discovery in CA 08−1220 and CA 12−557. Another status conference set for 11/8/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/23/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
272 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
273 MOTION for Reconsideration re 251 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim ; by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 11/20/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
274 ORDER that the parties shall meet and confer and confect a mutually−agreeableprotective order no later than 10 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(lag, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
275 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 37 of 58

10/28/2013 10/28/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013
11/01/2013 11/01/2013
11/04/2013 11/04/2013
11/05/2013 11/06/2013

276 ORDER granting 272 Motion to Substitute Trial Attorney Erin Casey Hangartner in place of Hal D. Ungar. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/28/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
277 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
278 ORDER granting 275 Motion to Substitute Trial Attorney, Julie Steptoe Bean in place of Steven Lee Murray for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/29/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
279 ORDER granting 277 Motion to Designate Trial Attorney Thomas Fritzsche for plaintiffs intervenors. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/29/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
280 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B−e−mail, # 3 Exhibit C−e−mail, # 4 Exhibit D−e−mail, # 5 Exhibit E−e−mail, # 6 Exhibit F−e−mail, # 7 Exhibit G−e−mail, # 8 Exhibit H−e−mail, # 9 Exhibit I−e−mail, # 10 Exhibit J−e−mail, # 11 Exhibit K−e−mail, # 12 Exhibit L−e−mail, # 13 Exhibit M−e−mail, # 14 Exhibit N−Articles and cases)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
281 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− EEOC v. Koch Foods Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
282 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− EEOC First RPD, # 2 Exhibit 2− EEO Second RPD, # 3 Exhibit 3− Signal Responses to EEOC First RPD, # 4 Exhibit 4− Signal Responses to EEOC Second RPD, # 5 Exhibit 5− E−mails between counsel, # 6 Exhibit 6− Articles and Cases, # 7 Exhibit 7− Signal Amended Responses to EEOC's First Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit 8− EEOC Second Interrogatories to Signal, # 9 Exhibit 9− Signal's Responses to EEOC's Second Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit 10− EEOC's First RFA, # 11 Exhibit 11− EEOC's Rule 30b6 dep notice)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 11/4/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/01/2013)
283 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 282 Reply to Response to Motion. Document is acceptable as filed. Leave of Court is not required. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
284 JOINT MOTION/NOTICE of Filing Protective Order by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Joint Proposed Protective Order Pursuant to September 10, 2013 Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 11/5/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/04/2013)
285 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/5/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
286 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 11/6/2013 re 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents filed by Signal International, LLC. ORDERED that the 247 Motion for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is DENIED. (plh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 38 of 58

11/07/2013
11/07/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/15/2013
11/15/2013
11/15/2013
11/18/2013 11/18/2013

287 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Signal's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order Regarding Immigration Discovery by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/8/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/07/2013)
288 **WITHDRAWN PER ORDER AT R. DOC. 292** MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 11/20/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/8/2013 (tsf). (Entered: 11/07/2013)
289 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File T− and U−Visa Declarations Under Seal by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
290 NOTICE by Signal International, LLC re 289 MOTION for Leave to File T− and U−Visa Declarations Under Seal, 288 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
291 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 11/15/2013 04:00 PM. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/8/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
292 ORDER granting 289 Motion to Seal 288 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. FURTHER ORDER withdrawing 288 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment per Signal's 290 Notice. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/8/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
293 ORDER granting 287 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/8/13. (cbn) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
294 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order. (cbn) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
295 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 273 MOTION for Reconsideration re 251 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim ; . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
296 ERROR: REFILED AS DOC. #297** MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 12/11/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/18/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/15/2013)
297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 12/11/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
305 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/15/2013. Status Conferences scheduled during 2014 in all Signal cases: 1/13/2014 12:00 PM, 4/30/2014 10:00 AM, 7/31/2014 2:00 PM, 10/30/2014 2:00 PM, and 12/17/2014 3:00 PM. Pretrial Conference in 08−1220 set for 12/17/2014 2:00 PM and Jury Trial (for the first 5 plaintiffs ONLY) set for 1/12/2015. Phase I trial in 12−557 set for 6/1/2015 09:00 AM. Parties are to comply with these and additional deadlines as set forth herein. (tsf) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
298 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 296 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c). Document was refiled as Doc. #297. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
299 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) : Motion set for ORAL HEARING on 12/11/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/18/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 39 of 58

11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013
11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/26/2013
11/26/2013
11/27/2013 11/27/2013 12/02/2013 12/03/2013

300 ORDER: Status conference held on 11/8/13 before Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel to comply with deadlines set forth herein. (CC: all counsel in 13−6218 and consolidated cases). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
301 Letter to the Court re §§ 706 and 707 from Erin Hangartner, counsel for Signal, dated 11/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
302 Letter to the Court re jury for Phase I trial from Erin Hangartner, counsel for Signal, dated 11/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
303 Letter to the Court re §§ 706 and 707 from Julie Bean, counsel for EEOC, dated 11/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
304 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Proposed Reply Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 11/20/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/19/2013)
306 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 12/17/2013 12:00 PM. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/19/2013.(tsf) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
307 ORDER granting 304 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
308 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 273 MOTION for Reconsideration re 251 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim ; . (cbn) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
309 Third Notice of Related Case 13−6218 (c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221 in USDC, SDMS) by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Werner, Daniel) Modified on 11/27/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/26/2013)
310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 12/18/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A− Signal's Responses to EEOC's First Request for Production, # 3 Exhibit B− Signal's Responses to EEOC's Second Request for Production, # 4 Exhibit C− Signal's Amended Responses to EEOC's First Requests for Production, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 11/27/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/26/2013)
311 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date. Correct date is 12/18/2013. Clerk took corrective action.(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
312 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 1/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/27/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
313 ORDER re 252 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District; ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order prohibiting the discovery of immigration status, history, proceedings, and post−Signal employment and tax returns is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/2/2013. (gbw, ) (NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
314 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 40 of 58

12/03/2013
12/04/2013 12/05/2013
12/09/2013 12/09/2013 12/10/2013 12/10/2013 12/11/2013 12/17/2013 12/20/2013

26(c) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Signal Responses to EEOC First RPD, # 2 Exhibit B− Signal Amended Responses to EEOC First RPD)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
315 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Employee spreadsheet Signal redacted and produced in David, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Emails Signal produced in both redacted and unredacted form in David, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 − Employee spreadsheet Signal redacted and produced in David, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
316 ORDER &REASONS re 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order and oral request for clarification of the 228 Order &Reasons entered on 8/19/2013 in response to 141 MOTION to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/4/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
317 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/1/2015 02:00 PM, Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2015 02:00 PM and 1 month Jury Trial− Phase I set for 6/1/2015 09:00 AM. The following Status Conferences are scheduled in all Signal cases: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/17/2013 12:00 PM and In−Person Status Conferences set for 1/13/2014 12:00 PM, 4/30/2014 10:00 AM, 7/31/2014 02:00 PM, 10/30/2014 02:00 PM, and 12/17/2014 03:00 PM. Parties are to comply with these and additional deadlines as set forth herein. Counsel are to consult the attached pretrial notice for additional detail. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/4/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (CC: All counsel of record in 08−1220 and 13−6218) (tsf) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
318 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents : Motion RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 1/13/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/9/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
319 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Rule 26(c) Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
320 ORDER granting 319 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/10/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
321 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(plh, ) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
322 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 12/11/2013 re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) filed by Signal International, LLC. ORDERED that the 297 Motion for Protective Order is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
324 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/17/2013. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
323 ORDER that the 297 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/20/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 41 of 58

01/02/2014 01/03/2014
01/09/2014
01/09/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014
01/13/2014 01/13/2014 01/13/2014
01/13/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014

325 NOTICE of Change of Address of Erin Casey Hangartner, Alan Dean Weinberger, Hal D. Ungar, and Elham R. Rabbani by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
326 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1 (Signal's Privilege Log re EEOC's 1st RFP), # 2 Exhibit A−2 (Signal's Redaction Log re EEOC's 1st RFP), # 3 Exhibit A−3 (Signal's Non−Responsive Document Log re EEOC 1st RFP), # 4 Exhibit B − 9−20−13 letter to EEOC Litigation Support, # 5 Exhibit C − Supplemental Answers to EEOC RFP with green highlights)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 1/29/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A− Signal's Second Requests for Production, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
328 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Emergency Motion for Limited Protective Order (Opposed) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
329 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 328 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Emergency Motion for Limited Protective Order (Opposed) . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
330 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Plaintiff's Reply, # 2 Exhibit 2− Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
331 ORDER that the 328 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Emergency Motion for Limited Protective Order (Opposed) is granted. ORDERED that plaintiff's 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) is SET FOR ORAL HEARING on 1/22/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/10/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
332 ORDER granting 330 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/13/14. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
333 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
334 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 1/13/2014 re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ORDERED that the 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
346 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/13/2014. Status Conference set for 2/21/2014 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
335 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
336 ORDER denying 273 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/15/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 42 of 58

01/20/2014 01/21/2014
01/21/2014 01/21/2014 01/22/2014
01/22/2014
01/22/2014 01/22/2014 01/22/2014
01/24/2014
01/27/2014 01/28/2014

337 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Pleadings Under Seal by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/21/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 01/20/2014)
338 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in Support of 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− EEOC's Second Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2− Signal's Amended Responses to EEOC's Second Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 3− Signal's Responses to EEOC's Requests for Admissions)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
339 ORDER granting 337 Motion for Leave to File Pleadings Under Seal by Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
340 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
341 ***STRICKEN PER DOCUMENT 376 *** MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission) (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support − SEALED, # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts − SEALED) (tsf). Modified on 2/13/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 01/22/2014)
342 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Protective Order filed in Related Case 08−1220 at Rec. Doc. 913 and MOTION to File that Protective Order and Amendment into this Case by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission)(tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 01/22/2014)
343 ORDER granting 340 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/22/14. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
344 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International, LLC, in Opposition of 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
345 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 1/22/2014 re 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ORDERED that the 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has an extension of time of ten days to respond to defendant's discovery requests. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
347 ORDER Setting/Resetting Hearing on 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION to File this Protective Order and Amendment into this Case : IT IS ORDERED that Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order be set before Judge Morgan. Any memorandum in opposition shall be filed by January 29, 2014. The Court has deemed oral argument unnecessary, as submission on the pleadings is sufficient. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
348 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Reset and Consolidate Hearing on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 1/27/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 01/27/2014)
349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 43 of 58

01/28/2014
01/29/2014 01/29/2014 01/29/2014
01/29/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014 01/31/2014 01/31/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014

for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Proposed ESI Protocol, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Errata V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
350 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite plaintiffs' motion for entry of order regarding protocol for production of ESI by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
351 ORDER denying 348 Motion to Reset and Consolidate Hearing. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
352 ORDER re 349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . Any opposition shall be filed by 2/4/2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
353 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Memorandum in Opposition 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION for Protective Order by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 1/30/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2014: # 3 Proposed Pleading) (bwn). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
354 ORDER Status Conference set for 2/6/2014 12:00 PM to discuss discovery issues with electronically stored information, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014.(tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
355 ORDER denying 350 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
356 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION to File this Protective Order and Amendment into this Case . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
357 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (Production) by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/31/2014 to edit referral (bwn). (Entered: 01/31/2014)
358 ORDER granting 353 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/30/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
359 ORDER granting 357 Motion for Extension of Production Deadlines as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 2/3/14. (plh, ) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
360 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
361 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Modify Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/4/2014 (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2014: # 2 Proposed Pleading − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 44 of 58

02/04/2014 02/04/2014 02/04/2014
02/04/2014
02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014
02/06/2014
02/10/2014 02/10/2014

362 ORDER granting 361 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Modify Protective Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
363 Sealed Reply Memorandum by Signal International, L.L.C. re 342 Motion to Modify Protective Order. (bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
364 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − EEOC 12−12−13 letter, # 2 Exhibit 2 − SPLC 12−13−13 letter, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excel spreadsheet, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Affidavit of Matthew Blonde)(Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/10/2014: # 6 Exhibit SIGE0057104 − SIGE0057105) (caa, ). (Entered: 02/04/2014)
365 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
366 ORDER granting 365 Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
367 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to Supplement Exhibits re Doc. 1490 (2:08cv1220) by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit SIGE0057104−SIGE0057105)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/6/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/05/2014)
368 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Out of Time Response/Reply as to 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 2/6/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/05/2014)
369 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
370 MOTION to Strike 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION to File this Protective Order and Amendment into this Case and Strike Statement of Uncontested Material Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/26/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
377 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on February 6, 2014, at 12:00 p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel for the parties discussed the discovery issues and production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), David v. Signal (08−1220)(the "David case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) (the "Achari cases"). Parties are directed to comply with the dates set forth herein. The next in−person status conference will be held on February 21, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in Judge Morgan's chambers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (tbl) [Docketed in 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 and its consolidated cases] (Entered: 02/14/2014)
371 ORDER granting 367 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014. (caa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
372 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 02/10/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 45 of 58

02/11/2014
02/12/2014 02/12/2014 02/12/2014
02/13/2014
02/17/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/19/2014 02/21/2014

374 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/11/2014. The Court granted Signal's request to depose plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally for four (4) days. The Court ordered Signal to pay the costs associated with changing the witness' flights. The Court will hold an additional telephone status conference on February 13, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. The Court ordered Signal to file its answer by Monday, February 17, 2014. (bwn) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
373 SEALED RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors re Signal's 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2014: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 02/12/2014)
375 ORDER granting 368 MOTION for Leave to File Out of Time Response/Reply as to 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
376 ORDER AND REASONS − The EEOC's 370 Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike Signal's 341 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontested Facts be and hereby is GRANTED, and those two pleadings are STRICKEN from the record. To the extent the EEOC's motion also seeks to strike Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike is DENIED, and the Court will rule on Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order by separate order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/12/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
378 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on February 13, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel for the parties discussed the discovery issues and production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), David v. Signal (08−1220)(the "David case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) (the "Achari cases"). Parties are directed to comply with the deadlines/schedule set forth herein. (tbl) [Docketed in 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 and its consolidated cases] (Entered: 02/14/2014)
379 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Signal International, LLC to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/18/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/17/2014)
380 CLAWBACK ORDER. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/14/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
381 ORDER granting 379 Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Signal International, LLC to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
382 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to 179 Intervenor's First Amended Complaint in Intervention, with Jury Demand by Signal International, LLC.(bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
383 ORDER Regarding Protocols for the Production of Electronically Stored Information. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 List of Custodians)(bwn) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
384 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 6, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/22/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 02/21/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 46 of 58

02/21/2014 02/28/2014
03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014
03/11/2014
03/12/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/24/2014

386 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/21/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
385 ***WITHDRAWN PER ORDER SIGNED 3/27/2014*** MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel by EEOC Plaintiffs−Intervenors and David Plaintiffs. Motion set for 3/26/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Safe Harbor Notice, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified docket text on 3/3/2014 (jtd). Modified on 3/27/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 02/28/2014)
387 FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. 317 Scheduling Order of December 5, 2013 remains in effect except as modified herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/7/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
388 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
389 ORDER granting 388 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
390 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to 179 Intervenor Complaint, by Signal International, LLC.(bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
391 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/10/2014. Status Conference set for 3/11/2014 01:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Judge Morgan ordered the defendants in the David case and the Achari cases to file their answers to the recently filed amended complaints by March 24, 2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
392 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/11/2014. Counsel for Signal will produce an additional 200,000 documents without review by March 17, 2014 due to the removal of these defensive search terms. Judge Morgan extended Signal's deadline to review emails and produce a privilege log to March 31, 2014.The Court directed those defendants with pending motions to dismiss to file a brief memorandum within 7 days of this order clarifying their intention to reassert their motions to dismiss with respect to the amended complaints. (bwn) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
393 FIRST AMENDED ORDER REGARDING PROTOCOLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/12/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
394 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 385 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
395 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Dominic J. Gianna and Middleberg Riddle &Gianna as Attorney of Record by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
396 ORDER − The Court will conduct a telephone status conference in EEOC v. Signal (12−557), David v. Signal (08−1220), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) on March 24, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
397 ORDER granting 395 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Dominic Joseph Gianna terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
402 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/24/2014. The Court directed counsel for plaintiffs in the David case to amend their complaint to include which law their state law claims arise under by March 31, 2014. Judge Morgan ordered counsel for Signal to file a supplemental memorandum by April 7, 2014 discussing why Signal's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted in light of plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs may file a response to Signal's supplemental memorandum by April 14, 2014. The

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 47 of 58

03/25/2014
03/27/2014 03/31/2014 04/02/2014 04/15/2014 04/21/2014 04/29/2014
05/05/2014 05/06/2014

Court granted leave for the plaintiffs in the Achari cases to file a response to the memoranda filed by Signal and the Burnett defendants4 by March 31, 2014. The Court also allowed Signal to file a brief response to the plaintiffs' memoranda by April 7, 2014. Judge Morgan ordered counsel for the Dewan defendants to enroll as counsel of record in the Achari cases by March 31, 2014. Judge Morgan also ordered counsel for the Dewan defendants to file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to plaintiffs' amended complaints in the Achari cases by April 7, 2014. The Court moved the next status conference, previously scheduled for April 30, 2014, to April 29, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. Judge Morgan scheduled oral argument on Signal's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the David case, and the motions to dismiss in the Achari cases filed by Signal and the Burnett defendants, for April 29, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (bwn) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
398 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document re 385 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Tsu, Naomi) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/26/2014: # 1 Proposed Order) (bwn). (Entered: 03/25/2014)
399 ORDER granting 398 Motion to Withdraw 385 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
400 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Brian C. Roux by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
401 ORDER granting 400 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Brian C. Roux for Signal International, LLC, and Signal International, Inc. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/1/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
403 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 338 Supplemental Memorandum, 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents Notice of Scheduled Depositions and Pendency of Motion. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
404 ORDER that the 310 Motion to Compel Responses to Its First and Second Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/21/14. (plh) Modified doc type on 4/21/2014 (plh). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
412 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/29/2014. The Court ordered counsel for Signal to send the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices in the EEOC case, the David case, and the Achari cases to counsel for plaintiffs in the Texas cases. The Court ordered the depositions of Signal employees to begin on Mondays and instructed counsel for all parties to inform deponents that they must be available the entire week. The Court extended the deadline for the depositions of Signal's employees to July 11, 2014. The Court directed counsel for Signal to distribute an updated chart by May 5, 2014 outlining its Rule (30)(b)(6) designees, the topics on which the witnesses will testify, and the dates on which the depositions will occur. The Court ordered counsel for all parties to meet and confer regarding Signal's proposed schedule. (bwn) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. Motion set for 5/21/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 5/6/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 05/05/2014)
406 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/06/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 48 of 58

05/06/2014 05/07/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/12/2014 05/13/2014
05/13/2014 05/13/2014
05/14/2014
05/16/2014 05/20/2014
05/20/2014 05/21/2014 06/02/2014

407 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite re 405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
408 ORDER denying 405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/7/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
409 MOTION to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 6/4/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
410 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
411 ORDER granting 410 Motion to Expedite. Any party wishing to support or oppose the EEOC's Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions must file a memorandum by Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
413 ORDER re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. ORDERED that Signal must comply with this Court's order no later than Thursday, May 14, 2014 with respect to Paragraphs 1 and 3 in its position paper. With respect to paragraph 2, Signal must comply no later than Friday, May 23, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/13/14.(plh) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
414 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 409 MOTION to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
415 NOTICE of Change of Address by Daniel Werner on behalf of Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
416 ORDER denying 409 Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions. The Court will allow one representative of Signal to be present during the depositions of other Signal employees in their representative and individual capacities. The Court will not prevent Signal's employee witnesses from reviewing prior deposition testimony. Signal's request for costs is denied. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
417 Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
418 ORDER − The Court will conduct a telephone status conference in EEOC v. Signal (12−557), David v. Signal (08−1220), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) on May 21, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions necessary to participate in the conference via telephone. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
419 Motion to Transfer For Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings re MDL 2554 by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Schedule of Actions, # 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement, # 5 Correspondence, # 6 Proof of Service)(bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
420 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 5/21/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
421 ORDER clarifying Court's previous order 387 relating to depositions taken in David v. Signal (08−1220) (the "David case"), EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218, c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732) (the "Achari cases"). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered:

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 49 of 58

06/05/2014
06/09/2014 06/23/2014 06/25/2014 06/27/2014
06/30/2014 07/01/2014 07/02/2014 07/07/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014
07/09/2014
07/11/2014

06/02/2014)
422 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Partial Relief from Protective Order by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
423 ORDER granting 422 Motion Partial Relief from Protective Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
424 ORDER − Telephone Status Conference set for 6/25/2014 11:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
426 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/25/2014. Status Conference set for 7/28/2014 04:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (caa) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
425 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Thomas Fritzsche as Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
427 ORDER granting 425 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Thomas P. Fritzsche terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/30/2014. (caa) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
428 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Lance R. Rydberg by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
429 ORDER granting 428 Motion to Enroll Attorney Lance R. Rydberg as Additional Counsel of Record for Signal International, LLC,Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
433 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/7/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
430 Response/Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re Docket #1653 in related David case (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
431 ORDER − Upon request by counsel, the Court extended the deadline for oppositions to the Dewan Defendants' motion for protective order to July 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
432 ORDER − Upon request by counsel, the Court extended the deadline for oppositions to the Dewan Defendants' motion for protective order to July 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
434 ORDER re Deadlines for Expert Reports. In the David case, plaintiffs' reports in the Global Categories are due on August 20, 2014. In the Achari case and the Chakkiyattil case, plaintiffs' reports in the Global Categories are due on December 31, 2014. These reports must be provided by August 20, 2014 in the David case and by December 31, 2014 in the Achari case and the Chakkiyattil case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/8/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
435 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 7/30/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
436 ORDER AND REASONS − IT IS ORDERED that Burnett's Motion for Protective Order be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/11/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 50 of 58

07/28/2014 07/28/2014 07/30/2014 07/30/2014 08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/03/2014
08/03/2014
08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014
08/05/2014

437 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Further Supporting Motion to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
450 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/28/2014. Signals 435 motion to bifurcate filed in the David case, the EEOC case, and the Achari cases be and here by is DENIED as moot. Counsel for the parties in the EEOC case shall comply with the deadlines herein in anticipation of the June 1, 2015 jury trial. (bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
438 ORDER granting 437 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Further Supporting Motion to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
439 Reply Memorandum by Signal International, LLC to 435 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees (bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
440 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 8/27/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Notice of Submission, # 5 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
441 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Signal's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 8/1/2014 to remove submission info (bwn). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
442 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 440 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2014)
443 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2014)
444 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal to Opposition of Plaintiffs to Motion for Leave to Supplement Fact Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
445 ORDER granting 443 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document. (bwn) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
446 ORDER granting 441 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
447 ORDER denying 440 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Fact Witness List in the David case, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER denying as moot 440 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Fact Witness List in the EEOC and Achari cases, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER quashing 440 Motion to Notice Depositions for August 5 and 6, 2014, as further stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/4/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
448 SEALED RESPONSE in Opposition filed by All Plaintiff−Intervenors re 440 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2014: # 1 SEALED Exhibit A) (tsf). (Entered: 08/05/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 51 of 58

08/05/2014 08/12/2014 08/13/2014
08/15/2014 08/18/2014 08/20/2014
08/21/2014 08/28/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 09/04/2014
09/05/2014
09/05/2014 09/06/2014

449 ORDER finding as moot 444 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal to Opposition to Plaintiffs to Motion for Leave to Supplement Fact Witness List. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
451 ORDER Denying MDL Transfer and Consolidation. Signed by MDL Panel.(bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
452 Notice of Related Case(s) (Fourth Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan of related case(s) 14−01818. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
453 DEFICIENT: NOTICE of Appearance by Ylda Marisol Kopka on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Ylda Marisol Kopka added to party Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(pty:pla).(Kopka, Ylda) Modified on 8/15/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 08/15/2014)
454 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 342 Motion to Amend/Correct Protective Order Filed in Related Case, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/18/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
455 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July 28, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Related to 08−1220, 13−6218, 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732; applies to all cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/18/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
456 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Ylda Kopka by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
457 ORDER granting 456 Motion to Enroll Attorney Yida Marisol Kopka as Additional Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
458 NOTICE by Signal International, LLC of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
463 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/29/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 9/24/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/5/2014 to edit submission info (bwn). (Entered: 09/04/2014)
460 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA − Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the Magistrate Judge. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
461 ORDER that the 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 9/24/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/5/14.(plh) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
462 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 9/24/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 52 of 58

09/08/2014
09/08/2014
09/09/2014 09/11/2014 09/11/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/17/2014 09/17/2014
09/18/2014
09/19/2014
09/19/2014

9/8/2014 to remove referral (bwn). (Entered: 09/06/2014)
464 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on April 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/8/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
465 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that any opposition to the 462 Motion for Protective Order be filed in the record by September 11, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET for September 16, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel in all of the above−captioned matters are required to participate. The Court will provide call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
466 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
467 ORDER granting 466 Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. The deadline for the parties to exchange witness and exhibit lists is hereby extended for a period of 7 days, from September 12, 2014 to September 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
468 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 462 MOTION for Protective Order . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
469 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
494 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 9/16/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
470 ORDER that the 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA is RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 10/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/17/14.(plh) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
471 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on August 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/16/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
472 MOTION to Stay re 313 ORDER re 252 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 10/8/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/19/2014 to remove referral (bwn). (Entered: 09/18/2014)
473 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) − Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the District Judge. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
474 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 53 of 58

09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/23/2014
09/24/2014 09/24/2014 09/25/2014
09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014 10/01/2014

475 Exhibit List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
476 Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
477 Exhibit List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 10/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A− Signal's Answers to Third Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit B− Signal's Responses to Third RPD's, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
479 ORDER that the 478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 10/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/24/14.(plh) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
480 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue as to 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 9/25/2014 (caa). (Entered: 09/24/2014)
481 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 480 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is MOTION to Continue. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. No further action necessary at this time. (caa) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
484 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Mitchell Hasenkampf by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
485 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Motion for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization Under Seal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
486 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
487 ORDER Granting in Part 480 Motion to Continue as to 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Oppositions are due by October 8, 2014. Replies are due by October 13, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
488 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice James L. Cornblatt (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−4609034) by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of James L. Cornblatt, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Bollman, Patricia) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
489 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
490 ORDER re: 486 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ORDERED that the motion is granted in part to the extent that Signal International,

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 54 of 58

10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/03/2014
10/07/2014
10/09/2014
10/14/2014 10/16/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/23/2014

L.L.C. shall file its opposition no later than 10/3/2014 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/1/14. (plh) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
491 ORDER granting 484 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Mitchell P. Hasenkampf for Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
492 ORDER granting 485 Motion to File Motion for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
493 ORDER granting 488 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to James L. Cornblatt. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
495 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production, 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA : Motions RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 10/22/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/3/14.(plh) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
497 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
498 MOTION for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization/Restructuring, and/or Transfer, Sale or Assignment of Assets, Property, or Stock by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission) (bwn) Modified on 10/10/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 10/09/2014)
499 ORDER AND REASONS denying 472 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal or Alternatively to Stay Pending Application for Mandamus Relief. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
501 MOTION for Leave to File To File Motion for Sanctions Against EEOC by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 11/5/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
502 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 501 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Sanctions Against EEOC. Signal may file its motion for sanctions immediately. Expedited relief must be requested in a separate motion. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
505 ORDER that the 478 Motion to Compel Responses to Its Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART AS UNOPPOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/21/14. (plh) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
506 ORDER that the 459 Motion to Quash filed relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to RSA is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that the oral hearing set on 10/22/2014 is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/21/14. (plh) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
507 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/23/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 55 of 58

10/23/2014
10/23/2014 10/23/2014
10/23/2014 10/27/2014
10/28/2014 10/30/2014 11/03/2014 11/04/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/07/2014 11/10/2014 11/10/2014 11/14/2014 11/19/2014

508 EXPARTE/CONSENT Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/23/2014 to remove submission date (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/23/2014: # 3 Proposed Order) (bwn). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
509 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 507 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
510 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 508 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time − Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (bwn) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
511 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 498 MOTION for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization/Restructuring, and/or Transfer, Sale or Assignment of Assets, Property, or Stock. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
512 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the 507 Motion to Continue is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Signal's Motion for Sanctions by November 11, 2014. Signal may seek leave to file a reply memorandum. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 508 Motion for Expedited Consideration is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
514 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/28/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
525 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/30/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
515 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
517 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum Opposing EEOC's Motion for Order Requiring Notice by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
518 ORDER granting 517 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum Opposing EEOC's Motion for Order Requiring Notice. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
519 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 498 MOTION. (bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
520 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET in the above captioned matters for November 10, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the possibility of mediation in the David case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
521 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
531 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
523 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Designations by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
524 ORDER granting 523 Motion for Extension of Time to File Expert Designations. The deadline for Signal to file its expert reports shall be December 5, 2014 and EEOC shall have until January 9, 2015 to file any rebuttal reports. Signed by Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 56 of 58

12/02/2014 12/03/2014
12/03/2014 12/05/2014 12/05/2014 12/08/2014 12/11/2014
12/11/2014 12/11/2014 12/13/2014 12/16/2014 12/23/2014
12/23/2014
01/23/2015

Susie Morgan on 11/19/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
526 ORDER − The parties shall adhere to the deadlines herein in preparation for the June 1, 2015 jury trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/30/2014.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2014: # 1 Pre−Trial Notice Revised September 2014) (bwn). (Entered: 12/02/2014)
527 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
528 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
529 ORDER granting 528 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal file an opposition by December 8, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
530 NOTICE by Signal International, LLC of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
532 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 527 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
533 MOTION to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
534 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on EEOC's Motion to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
535 ORDER re 531 Telephone Status Conference. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/11/2014.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2014: # 1 Permitted Redactions) (bwn). (Entered: 12/11/2014)
537 ORDER granting 534 Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite. FURTHER ORDER that Signal shall file a response by December 16, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/13/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 12/13/2014)
538 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 533 MOTION to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
540 ORDER DENYING 533 MOTION to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports. Signal shall provide new expert reports to EEOC by December 24, 2014. The reports may not add any information or opinions not contained in the original report. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EEOC's rebuttal expert deadline is continued to February 9, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties adhere to the deadlines herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/22/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
542 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 527 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The fact discovery deadline is extended to February 27, 2015 but only with respect to Knights. Plaintiff may move the Court, if necessary, for a similar extension for RSA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain unchanged. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
543 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 21, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 57 of 58

01/23/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/29/2015
02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/05/2015 02/06/2015
02/06/2015

504−589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Applies to all cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
544 SEALED ORDER denying 462 Motion for Protective Order, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/19/2015. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2015: # 1 SEALED Attachment, # 2 SEALED Attachment, # 3 SEALED Attachment, # 4 SEALED Attachment, # 5 SEALED Attachment, # 6 SEALED Attachment) (tsf). (Entered: 01/23/2015)
545 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Dr. Louise Shelley by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
546 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Ron McAlear by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
547 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Don Strobel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
548 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on May 21, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Reference: 08−1220, 13−6218 c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732) Applies to All Cases. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/29/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
549 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Robert A. Canino added to party Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(pty:pla).(Canino, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
550 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Robert A. Canino to be substituted in place of Julie Steptoe Bean as TRIAL ATTORNEY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
551 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witness Report. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
552 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on October 30, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Applies to all cases. (Reference: 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732, 14−1818) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2015. (rsg) Modified on 2/6/2015 (rsg). (Entered: 02/06/2015)
553 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 549 Motion to Appear as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/5/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-00557-SM-DEK As of: 02/26/2015 05:09 PM CST 58 of 58

02/08/2015
02/08/2015 02/08/2015 02/09/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015
02/23/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015

554 ***FILED IN ERROR − See 555 for Corrected Filing*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Attorney Oath, # 3 Proposed Order Enrolling Counsel of Record)(Bean, Julie) Modified on 2/9/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 02/08/2015)
555 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Bean, Julie) (Entered: 02/08/2015)
556 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Robert Canino to be substituted in place of Julie Bean by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Bean, Julie) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/9/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (bwn). (Entered: 02/08/2015)
557 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that due to an ongoing trial, the status conference scheduled in these matters on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 is CONTINUED to Monday, March 2, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/9/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
559 ORDER − In anticipation of the status conference on March 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.; IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit a joint proposed agenda by February 25, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
561 ORDER finding as moot 550 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
562 ORDER granting 555 Motion to Enroll Robert A. Canino as Additional Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
563 ORDER granting 556 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Julie Steptoe Bean terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
564 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Chandra Bhatnagar as Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
566 ORDER granting 564 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Chandra S. Bhatnagar. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
569 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Steven Murray as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
570 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Marsha L. Rucker as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Motion to Withdraw (Rucker))(Rucker, Marsha) (Entered: 02/26/2015)

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 1 of 63
2000E,CLOSED,PROTO,STAYED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−00557−SM−DEK

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC Assigned to: Judge Susie Morgan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III Case in other court: Mississippi Southern, 1:11−cv−00179 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/01/2012 Date Terminated: 05/12/2015 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Julie Steptoe Bean U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2067 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: julie.bean@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/20/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert A. Canino U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm (Dallas) 207 S. Houston Street 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214−253−2700 Email: robert.canino@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anica C. Jones U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Nashville) 220 Athens Way Suite 350 Nashville, TN 37228 615−736−2105 Fax: 901/544−0111 Email: anica.jones@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles E. Guerrier EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205−2881 205−212−2100 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2012

Gerald L Miller U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 2 of 63
Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2047 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: gerald.miller@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joel P. Clark U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm (Dallas) 207 S. Houston Street 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214−253−2743 Email: joel.clark@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marsha Lynn Rucker EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION − Birmingham Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205−2881 205−212−2046 Fax: 205/212−2041 Email: marsha.rucker@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meaghan L. Shepard U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm (Dallas) 207 S. Houston Street 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214−253−2746 Email: meaghan.shepard@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven Lee Murray U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham) 1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2043 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: steven.murray@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzanne M. Anderson U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm (Dallas) 207 S. Houston Street 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214−253−2740 Email: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ylda Marisol Kopka U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Birmingham)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 3 of 63
1130 22nd St. S. Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2062 Email: ylda.kopka@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 04/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan

represented by Sheila A. Bedi Southern Poverty Law Center (Jackson) 921 North President St. Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 948−8882 Email: sheila.a.bedi@gmail.com TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Fritzsche Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Fax: 404/221−5857 Email: tom.fritzsche@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Alan Bruce Howard Crowell & Moring, LLP (New York) 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212−803−4042 Email: ahoward@crowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chandra S. Bhatnagar American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New York/Broad) 125 Broad St. 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−519−7840 Email: cbhatnagar@aclu.org TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 4 of 63

Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 504−486−8982 Email: eden.heilman@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 212−702−7057 Email: hsandler@nussbaumpc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 x235 Fax: 212−966−4303 Email: isuriyopas@aaldef.org TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard Suite 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516−228−1300 Email: jbjarnson@swcblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 1055 St. Charles Ave. Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−486−8982 Fax: 504−486−8947 Email: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Email: naomi.tsu@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 5 of 63

TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Kurian David

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 6 of 63

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Thanasekar Chellappan

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 7 of 63

Intervenor Plaintiff Muruganantham Kandhasamy

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 8 of 63

TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Kuldeep Singh

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 9 of 63

Intervenor Plaintiff Krishan Kumar
Intervenor Plaintiff Hemant Khuttan

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 10 of 63

Intervenor Plaintiff Sony Vasudevan Sulekha

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 11 of 63

Intervenor Plaintiff Kechuru Dhananjaya

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY
Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 12 of 63

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 13 of 63

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews

represented by Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Thomas P. Fritzsche (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Daniel Werner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Naomi Tsu

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 14 of 63
(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Signal International, LLC

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Email: ehangartner@hanrylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R. Rydberg Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: lrydberg@hanrylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Fax: 504−581−5983 Email: aweinberger@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: broux@hanrylaw.com TERMINATED: 11/17/2016
Dominic Joseph Gianna Aaron & Gianna, PLC 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 (504) 569−1800 Email: dgianna@aarongianna.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
Elham Rabbani Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 15 of 63

Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: erabbani@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D. Ungar Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart (New Orleans) 701 Poydras St. Suite 3500 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−648−3840 Email: hal.ungar@ogletreedeakins.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2016

James L. Cornblatt Patricia A. Bollman, APLC 3636 S. I−10 Service Road West Metairie, LA 70001 504−218−5887 Email: jcornblatt25@gmail.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P. Hasenkampf Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: mhasenkampf@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Anne F. Bollman The Kullman Firm 1100 Poydras Street Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163 504−596−4123 Email: pab@kullmanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Third Party Plaintiff Signal International, LLC

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016

Dominic Joseph Gianna

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 16 of 63
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D. Ungar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016
James L. Cornblatt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Anne F. Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Third Party Defendant Global Resources, Inc.
Third Party Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company TERMINATED: 06/27/2012

represented by Global Resources, Inc. 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 PRO SE

Date Filed 04/20/2011 05/06/2011
05/06/2011 05/06/2011
05/06/2011
05/06/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Signal International, LLC, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 04/20/2011)
2 MOTION to Intervene by Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kurian David (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Vijayan and Kadakkarappally EEOC Cause Determinations, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Class Complaint in Intervention)(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
4 MOTION for Daniel Werner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing (GA and NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
5 MOTION for Naomi Tsu to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing (GA and CA))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
6 MOTION for Thomas P. Fritzsche to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (GA))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered:

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 17 of 63

05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/09/2011 05/09/2011
05/09/2011 05/11/2011 05/11/2011 05/12/2011 05/17/2011 05/19/2011 05/20/2011 05/20/2011

05/06/2011)
7 MOTION for Alan B. Howard to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
8 MOTION for Hugh D. Sandler to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
9 MOTION for Joseph R. Bjarnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
10 MOTION for Chandra S. Bhatnagar to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
11 MOTION for Ivy Suriyopas to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing (NY))(Bedi, Sheila) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/06/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #4 and #5: no case number on documents. Attorney does not need to re−file, but is reminded to review PDFs before filing. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/09/2011)
12 ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on May 9, 2011 (King, Steve) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/09/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Daniel Werner receipt number 0538−1858979 $ 100 (Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/09/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Naomi Tsu receipt number 0538−1860786 $ 100 (Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/11/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Thomas P. Fritzsche receipt number 0538−1860796 $ 100 (Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/11/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Joseph R. Bjarnson $ 100, receipt number 34643009773; by Hugh D. Sandler $100, receipt number 34643009772; and by Alan B. Howard $100, receipt number 34643009771. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/12/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Ivy Suriyopas $ 100, receipt number 34643009865. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/17/2011)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles E. Guerrier on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/19/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by C Bhatnagar $ 100, receipt number 34643009938. (avm) Modified on 5/20/2011 to correct spelling of name(avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/20/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to pro hac fee paid this date: the docket entry has been edited to correct the spelling of the attorneys name. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/20/2011)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 18 of 63

05/24/2011 05/25/2011
05/25/2011 05/25/2011 05/26/2011
05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/26/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011 06/10/2011

14 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/24/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #14: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Document is undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. ADDITIONAL DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #14: U.L.Cr.R.47(B) requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. ADDITIONAL DOCKET ANNOTATION : court staff advised attorney to enter a notice of appearance as attorney did not add himself to the case upon filing of this document. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/25/2011)
15 NOTICE of Mailing of Waiver of Service to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Murray, Steven) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/25/2011)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Anica Clarissa Conner on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Conner, Anica) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/25/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #16: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Document is undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings.(avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #15: incorrect docket event used. Attorney is directed to refile using the correct event for "request for waiver of service". (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
17 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Signal International, c/o CT Corporation System, 645 Lakeland East Drive, Suite 101, Flowood, MS 39232 on May 20, 2011 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Waiver of Service due by 6/22/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, pp. 1−3)(Murray, Steven) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Hal D. Ungar on behalf of Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
19 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2 MOTION to Intervene by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner − PHV, Daniel) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/26/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #19: Proposed orders are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e−mail (Courts Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/27/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2 MOTION to Intervene. Replies due by 6/14/2011. No further written order will issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on May 27, 2011 (King, Steve) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/27/2011)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Julie Steptoe Bean on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 05/27/2011)
21 NOTICE of Filing of Return of Service by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 06/10/2011)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 19 of 63

06/14/2011 07/10/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011 07/20/2011 07/22/2011 07/22/2011 07/25/2011
08/01/2011 08/02/2011
08/05/2011 08/08/2011 08/09/2011 08/11/2011

22 Rebuttal re 14 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 2 MOTION to Intervene filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 06/14/2011)
23 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signal International, LLC waiver sent on 5/20/2011, answer due 7/19/2011. (Murray, Steven) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/10/2011)
24 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/19/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #24: Memoranda in support should be filed separately and shown as a related document to the motion (Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec. 3.A.7). Attorney is directed to file the Memorandum as a separate document and link it to the appropriate document. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/20/2011)
25 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 24 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/20/2011)
26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal). Added MOTION to Change Venue on 7/25/2011 (avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/22/2011)
27 MEMORANDUM in Support re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule filed by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/22/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #26: This document requests several motion reliefs. Every motion relief should be selected from the list of motion titles or each relief docketed separately. The same PDF document may be used for all motion filing entries. It is not necessary to refile as court staff has made the necessary correction and added a motion relief to change venue. Attorney is advised to follow this procedure in future filings. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 07/25/2011)
28 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 24 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/01/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #28: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Document is undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/02/2011)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/05/2011)
30 REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) Modified on 8/9/2011 to add document link to original motion 24 (avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/08/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #30: Incorrect linkage made. Reply to Response should be linked to Motion for More Definite Statment, as all related filings to motions (using the "Responses and Replies" category, with the exception of "Response to Order") should be linked back to the original motion. Court staff has made the correction. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/09/2011)
31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) [Transferred from mssd on

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 20 of 63

08/11/2011 08/12/2011 08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/24/2011 08/31/2011
08/31/2011
08/31/2011 09/07/2011 09/09/2011 11/02/2011 01/04/2012
01/05/2012 01/05/2012

3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/11/2011)
32 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/11/2011)
33 REPLY to Response to Motion re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/12/2011)
34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/18/2011)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support re 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/18/2011)
36 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/24/2011)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 31 MOTION to Strike 30 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer, 36 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for a More Definitive Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Bean, Julie) Modified on 8/31/2011 to correct document linkage to motion #31 to strike #30(avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/31/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #37: office of J Bean advised this reply to response was linked to the incorrect motion; court staff has edited the docket entry and the document links to make this a reply to response to 31 motion to strike 30 , and to 36 memorandum in opposition to 31 . (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/31/2011)
38 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 08/31/2011)
39 REPLY to Response to Motion re 34 MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to Response to Motion to Stay or Transfer filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 09/07/2011)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #39: Incorrect event chosen. Based on the title and document contains case law, the event code "Memorandum in Support of Motion" should have been used. Attorney is not required to refile. (RLW) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 09/09/2011)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Marsha Lynn Rucker on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rucker, Marsha) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 11/02/2011)
41 ** DISREGARD − SEE DOCKET ENTRY #42 ** MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue Supplemental Authority filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order in David v. Signal)(Guerrier, Charles) Modified on 1/5/2012 (avm). [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/04/2012)
42 NOTICE of supplemental authority by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 26 MOTION to Stay Case and Transfer Pursuant to the First−Filed Rule MOTION to Change Venue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Authority)(Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/05/2012)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #41: document has been filed as a Notice; see docket entry #42. Court staff has termed the link to the original motion. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/05/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 21 of 63

01/06/2012 01/24/2012 02/03/2012 02/15/2012 02/15/2012 02/16/2012
02/23/2012 02/23/2012 02/24/2012 02/24/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 02/29/2012 03/01/2012 03/02/2012 03/02/2012

43 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 42 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Signal International, LLC (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/06/2012)
44 ORDER granting 2 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on January 24, 2012 (King, Steve) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 01/24/2012)
45 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kurian David.(Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/03/2012)
46 MOTION to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rucker, Marsha) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/15/2012)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support re 46 MOTION to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E correspondences between EEOC and Signal re: initial disclosures)(Rucker, Marsha) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/15/2012)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #46 and #47: Pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. Rule 49(d) and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84, appendix form 2 states that date, signature, address, e−mail address and telephone number are used at the conclusion of pleadings and other papers that require a signature. Main documents are undated, but the date will be construed as the date of electronic filing. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (avm) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/16/2012)
48 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Guerrier, Charles) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/23/2012)
49 RESPONSE in Support re 46 MOTION to Compel filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche − PHV, Thomas) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/23/2012)
50 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Intervenors' Complaint by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/24/2012)
51 MEMORANDUM in Support re 50 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Intervenors' Complaint filed by Signal International, LLC (Ungar, Hal) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/24/2012)
TEXT ORDER finding as moot 26 Motion to Stay Case NO FURHTER WRITTEN ORDER WILL FOLLOW. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 02/29/2012 (Guirola, Louis) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/29/2012)
52 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; denying 34 Motion to Strike as moot. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 2/29/12 (PKS) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/29/2012)
District Transfer Out to the Eastern District of Louisiana. (PKS) [Transferred from mssd on 3/1/2012.] (Entered: 02/29/2012)
53 Case transferred in from District of Mississippi Southern; Case Number 1:11−cv−00179. Electronic file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received (jtd) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
54 Notice of Related Case(s) 08−cv−01220 of Possible Collateral Proceeding by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rucker, Marsha) Modified text on 3/5/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/02/2012)
55 **DEFICIENT**NOTICE of Appearance by Eden B. Heilman on behalf of Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/5/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 22 of 63

03/02/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/05/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/09/2012
03/12/2012 03/12/2012
03/12/2012 03/12/2012 03/12/2012
03/12/2012 03/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/13/2012

56 **DEFICIENT**Notice of Related Case(s) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.1 by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan of related case(s) 08−cv−01220. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/5/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/02/2012)
57 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 54 Notice (Other). **Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Notice of Related Case. Clerk took corrective action by either changing the event.** (mm, ) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
58 Notice of Related Case(s) by Signal International, LLC of related case(s) 08−1220. (Ungar, Hal) Modified case info on 3/6/2012 (mm, ). (Entered: 03/05/2012)
59 Notice of Related Case(s) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan of related case(s) 08−1220. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
60 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 58 Notice of Related Case(s). **Filing attorney entered incorrect case number for related case. Clerk corrected info. No further action necessary.** (mm, ) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
61 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Case transferred to Judge Jay C. Zainey for all further proceedings. Judge Helen G. Berrigan no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 3/2/12.(plh, )(NEF: County, DEK) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
62 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Enrolling Eden Heilman as Counsel for Plaintiff−Intervenors)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/12/2012 to edit text (rll, ). (Entered: 03/09/2012)
63 ORDER granting 62 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 3/12/2012. (mm, ) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
64 MOTION to Deny consolidation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 3/28/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission)(Rucker, Marsha) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/13/2012: # 2 Memorandum in Support) (gbw, ). Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
65 ERROR: FILED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 64 MOTION Deny consolidation. (Rucker, Marsha) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
66 ERROR: SEE DOC. #63** NOTICE of Appearance by Eden B. Heilman on behalf of Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
67 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Fritzsche. (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3428341) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas Fritzsche, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/12/2012)
68 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 50 MOTION for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), or in the alternative, Motion for Partial Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Intervenors' Complaint. (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
69 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 65 Response/Memorandum in Support of Motion. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document #64. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is needed. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
70 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 66 Notice of Appearance. A deficiency notice was previously sent to refile as a motion & order. Per Doc. #62 & #63, the motion & order was already granted. Notice of appearance was not necessary. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
71 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 67 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Fritzsche (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3428341)Document contains

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 23 of 63

03/13/2012
03/13/2012 03/13/2012 03/14/2012 03/14/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/21/2012 03/22/2012 03/23/2012 03/23/2012
03/23/2012 03/26/2012 03/27/2012 03/27/2012 03/28/2012 03/29/2012

incorrect Section. All future pleadings must reflect Section A (Jay C. Zainey) and Magistrate Judge 3 (Daniel E. Knowles, III).(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
72 ORDER In light of the potential overlap between the discrimination claims brought in this lawsuit and in Civil Action 08−1220, the Plaintiffs in this matter, including the EEOC, are ORDERED to participate in the 08−1220 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Knowles scheduled for 4/3/12 10:00 AM in New Orleans. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
73 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III.Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(mm, ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
74 Order Vacating Case Referral to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/13/2012.(gbw, )(NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
75 ORDER granting 48 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Charles E. Guerrier terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/14/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
76 ORDER granting 67 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Fritzsche. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/14/2012(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
77 ORDER denying 24 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying as moot 31 Motion to Strike ; denying 50 Motion for More Definite Statement. Deadlines set herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
78 ORDER Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
79 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven Lee Murray on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Murray, Steven) Modified on 3/22/2012 (gbw, ). (acceptable per case mgr.) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
80 DEFICIENT** NOTICE of Appearance by Gerald L Miller on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 3/23/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/22/2012)
81 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 78 Order in Support of Consolidation of David and This Case and Opposing Plaintiff's Motion to Deny Consolidation (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
82 Memorandum by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 78 Order in Opposition of Consolidation of the David and EEOC Cases and in Support of the Commission's Motion to Deny Consolidation (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
83 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, re 78 Order in Support of 64 MOTION Deny consolidation. (Bean, Julie) Modified on 3/26/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/23/2012)
84 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
85 Response/Reply by Signal International, LLC Supporting Consolidation re 78 Order (Ungar, Hal) Modified on 3/28/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
86 Response/Reply by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan Opposing Consolidation re 78 Order. (Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 3/28/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
87 ORDER granting 84 Motion to Appear as Additional Counsel Gerald L. Miller. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/27/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
88 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Meredith Stewart by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 03/29/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 24 of 63

03/30/2012 03/30/2012 03/30/2012 04/02/2012 04/02/2012 04/03/2012 04/05/2012 04/11/2012 04/13/2012 04/13/2012 04/16/2012
04/16/2012
04/16/2012
04/18/2012 04/20/2012
04/20/2012

89 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 46 MOTION to Compel Initial Disclosures. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
90 ANSWER to 45 Intervenor Complaint with Jury Demand of Signal International, LLC, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Global Resources, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company by Signal International, LLC.(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
91 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Signal International, LLC.(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
92 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Enroll Meredith Stewart as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/30/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
93 ORDER granting 64 Motion to Deny Consolidation, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
94 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Settlement Conference held on 4/3/2012. (mm, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
95 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susie Morgan for all further proceedings. Judge Jay C. Zainey no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/4/2012.(gbw, )(NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
96 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Dominic J. Gianna, Erin Casey Hangartner, Alan Dean Weinberger and Elham R. Rabbani by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
97 ORDER granting 96 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Erin Casey Hangartner,Dominic Joseph Gianna,Elham Rabbani,Alan Dean Weinberger for Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/12/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
98 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Daniel Werner (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3471040) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Declaration of Daniel Werner)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
99 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alan Howard (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3473915) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
100 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Hugh Sandler (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3473916) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
101 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Joseph Bjarnson (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3473918) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
102 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Daniel Werner. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/17/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively, MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 5/9/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 4/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/20/2012)
104 ORDER granting 99 Motion for Alan Bruce Howard to Appear Pro Hac Vice for intervening plas. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/12. (bbc, ) (Entered:

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 25 of 63

04/20/2012 04/20/2012 04/23/2012
04/23/2012
04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/25/2012 05/01/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012 05/08/2012
05/08/2012 05/10/2012 05/10/2012

04/20/2012)
105 ORDER granting 100 Motion for Hugh Daniel Sandler to Appear Pro Hac Vice for intervening plas. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/12. (bbc, ) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
107 ORDER granting 101 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Joseph Ray Bjarnson. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
106 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Chandra Shekhara Bhatnagar (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3481105) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Declaration)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
108 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. Filing attorney incorrectly referred this motion to magistrate judge. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
109 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Global Resources, Inc. on 4/11/2012, answer due 6/11/2012. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 5/9/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
111 ORDER granting 106 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Chandra Shekhara Bhatnagar. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/25/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
112 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, 110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint . (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 05/01/2012)
113 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Document Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 5/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
114 **DEFICIENT** REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 5/8/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
115 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 113 REPLY to Response. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'Motion for Leave to File Document'. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. In addition, filing attorney did not select category 'Proposed Pleading' when attaching document for which leave to file is being requested. Clerk took corrective action. Lastly, the title of the attached proposed order should not include the word Proposed but only reflect Order on the actual document. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
116 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
117 ORDER granting 113 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/10/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
118 REPLY to Response in Support to Motion filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint . (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 26 of 63

05/10/2012 05/10/2012
05/11/2012
05/21/2012
05/21/2012 05/22/2012 05/22/2012 05/31/2012
06/04/2012 06/11/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/13/2012 06/15/2012
06/15/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/25/2012 06/27/2012

119 ORDER granting 116 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/10/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
120 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 103 MOTION to Strike 91 Answer to Complaint or Alternatively MOTION to Dismiss Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, and 110 MOTION to Strike 90 Answer to Intervenor Complaint, Third Party Complaint . (clm, ) (Entered: 05/10/2012)
121 ORDER Status Conference set for 6/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan.FURTHER ORDERED that each party in this matter shall submit a letter to the Court as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/11/2012.(mm, )(NEF: DEK) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
122 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Ivy O. Suriyopas (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3521697) by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Declaration)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
123 Application for Refund of Electronic Fees filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan for the following reason: duplicate charge; receipt number 256OKNL6. (Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
124 ORDER granting 122 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ivy O. Suriyopas.. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/22/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
125 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Scottsdale Insurance Company on 4/17/2012, answer due 6/18/2012. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
126 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Move for Class Certification by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
127 ORDER granting 126 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Move for Class Certification. Deadline to move for class certification will be set by further Order of this Court. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/4/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
128 ORDER Status Conference set for 6/15/2012 at 10:00 a.m. is reset to 10:30 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Morgan.(cbn) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 06/11/2012)
129 Letter to Court from Julie Bean (EEOC) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
130 Letter to Court from Erin Casey Hangartner (Middleberg) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
131 Letter to Court from Thomas Fritzsche (SPLC) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
132 ORDER Setting Hearing on 46 MOTION to Compel : Motion set for SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS 6/27/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/15/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
133 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/15/2012. Counsel to comply with deadlines as set forth in document. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
134 Letter from Julie Bean in response to 133 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
135 Letter form Erin Hangartner in response to 133 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
136 Letter from Naomi Tsu in response to 133 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
137 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice as to Scottsdale Insurance Company by Signal International, LLC. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 27 of 63

06/28/2012 07/03/2012 07/09/2012 07/20/2012 07/23/2012 07/26/2012
07/27/2012
07/27/2012 07/30/2012
07/30/2012 08/03/2012 08/07/2012 08/07/2012

138 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to 3rd party pla. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
139 ORDER denying 46 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/3/2012. (my, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
140 ORDER: The deadline for filing any motion for class certification shall be no later than 10/15/12 and noticed for submission on 11/21/12. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
141 MOTION to Bifurcate by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 8/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 07/20/2012)
142 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct time is set for 8/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
143 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on June 15, 2012 before Judge Susie Morgan, also present was Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2012. (rsg) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
144 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Resources, Inc. by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Ungar, Hal) Modified on 7/30/2012 (clm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/30/2012: # 6 Proposed Order, # 7 Notice of Last Known Address) (clm, ). (Main Document 144 replaced on 8/7/2012) (cbn, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/7/2012) (cbn, ). (Entered: 07/27/2012)
145 **ERROR:DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT; SEE REC. DOC. 144**NOTICE by Signal International, LLC of Last Known Address for Global Resources, Inc. (Ungar, Hal) Modified on 7/30/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 07/27/2012)
146 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 144 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Resources, Inc. . Filing attorney should have selected motion as an Exparte/Consent Motion. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk has removed hearing date. In addition, filing attorney did not include a proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. Lastly, name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
147 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 145 Notice (Other). Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to ' Motion for Entry of Default'. Clerk took corrective action, see Rec Doc 144. No further action is needed. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
148 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− First Amended Complaint, # 2Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified text on 8/6/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/03/2012)
149 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
150 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 28 of 63

08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/08/2012 08/15/2012
08/15/2012
08/16/2012
08/17/2012
08/18/2012 08/18/2012 08/21/2012
08/21/2012
08/21/2012 08/22/2012 08/22/2012
08/31/2012 08/31/2012

151 ORDER granting 144 Motion for Entry of Default as to 3rd party defendant Global Resources, Inc. Signed by clerk (cbn) (CC to Global Resources 8/16/12) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
152 ORDER granting 148 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/7/2012. (caa, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
153 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Signal International, LLC filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(caa, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
154 Summons Issued as to Signal International, LLC. (caa, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
155 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order )(Miller, Gerald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/16/2012: # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply) (clm, ). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
156 **ERROR: DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED SEPARATELY; SEE REC. DOC. 155**REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/16/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
157 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 156 Reply to Response to Motion. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document 155 MOTION for Leave to File Reply. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is needed. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
158 DEFICIENT** MOTION for Discovery (Expedited) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/12/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−EEOC First Interrogatories, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/20/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/17/2012)
159 ORDER granting 155 Motion for Leave to File reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/17/12. (cbn) (Entered: 08/18/2012)
160 REPLY of pla to Response to Motion re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (cbn) (Entered: 08/18/2012)
161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/5/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− EEOC First Interrogatories, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit Notice of Certification)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
162 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Expedite Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
163 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 162 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Expedite Discovery . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
164 ORDER denying 162 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/22/12. (plh, ) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
165 ORDER that the 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 9/5/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/22/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
166 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
167 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) : Motion RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 9/12/2012 11:00 AM before

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 29 of 63

09/06/2012 09/12/2012 09/18/2012 10/15/2012
10/16/2012 10/16/2012 10/30/2012 11/05/2012 11/06/2012 11/06/2012 11/07/2012
11/07/2012

Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/31/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
168 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or, In The Alternative, To Restrict Intervention by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 9/26/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
169 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 9/12/2012 re 161 MOTION for Discovery (Expedited Discovery) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ORDERED that the EEOC's 161 Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
170 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 168 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or, In The Alternative, To Restrict Intervention . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 11/7/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention, # 2 Proposed Pleading Proposed First Amended Complaint in Intervention, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified hrg time on 10/16/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/15/2012)
172 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention. Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct time is 11:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
173 ORDER that the 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 11/7/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/16/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
174 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2012)
175 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
176 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/6/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
177 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Further Support filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
178 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 11/7/2012 re 171 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Intervention filed by Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Sabulal Vijayan. ORDERED that Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Motion for Leave to File Their First Amended Complaint in Intervention 171 is GRANTED. (plh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
179 FIRST AMENDED Intervenor COMPLAINT filed by Sabulal Vijayan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Thanasekar Chellappan, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Kuldeep Singh, Krishan Kumar, Hemant Khuttan, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Palanyandi Thangamani, Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 30 of 63

11/09/2012 11/15/2012 11/19/2012 11/19/2012 11/21/2012
11/27/2012
11/29/2012 12/10/2012 12/11/2012
12/18/2012 12/19/2012 12/20/2012 04/09/2013
05/14/2013

180 DEFICIENT** NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate Notice of Supplemental Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− EEOC v Cintas Corp. 6th Cir. opinion)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 11/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/09/2012)
181 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Supplemental Authority, # 2 Exhibit EEOC v. Cintas Opinion, # 3 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
182 ORDER granting 181 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
183 Notice of supplemental authority filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 141 MOTION to Bifurcate . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
184 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint in Intervention For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 12/19/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/23/2012 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2012: # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D) (cbn, ). (Entered: 11/21/2012)
185 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplement Memorandum Supporting Partial Motion for Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to LR 7.4 Solely to Supply Omitted Exhibits by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit "A", # 3 Exhibit "B", # 4 Exhibit "C", # 5 Exhibit "D")(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
186 ORDER granting 185 Motion for Leave to Supplement. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/28/12. (cbn) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
187 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 184 MOTION to Dismiss of First Amended Complaint in Intervention . Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim FRCP 12(b)(6). Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
188 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 184 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint in Intervention for Failure to State a Claim . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
189 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum Supporting Partial Motion for Dismissal For Failure to State a Claim by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
190 ORDER granting 189 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
191 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 184 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint in Intervention for Failure to State a Claim. (cbn) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
192 MOTION Protection from Delay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 6/5/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. a to Memorandum− EEOC First Interrogatories, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/10/2013: # 3 Exhibit) (clm, ). (Entered: 04/09/2013)
193 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 192 MOTION Protection from Delay . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 31 of 63

05/20/2013
05/28/2013 05/30/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/03/2013 06/06/2013
06/11/2013 07/03/2013 07/03/2013
07/03/2013 07/15/2013 07/16/2013
07/16/2013

194 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part 103 Motion to Strike ; granting in part 110 Motion to Strike. Signal International shall re−urge its answers and affirmative defenses within 14 days of entry of this Order, amending both pleadings to correct the issues described in the Court's order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
195 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 192 MOTION Protection from Delay of Litigation. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
196 NOTICE of Intent Not to File a Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 195 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 5/31/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/30/2013)
197 ORDER denying as moot 168 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
198 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 192 Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/3/2013. (tsf) (NEF: Mag Jdg Knowles) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
199 ANSWER to 153 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Signal International, LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
200 Statement by Signal International, LLC (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
201 Response and Objection to 200 Statement of Defendant Signal International, LLC by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Werner, Daniel) Modified on 6/7/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/06/2013)
202 ORDER AND REASONS denying Signal International, LLC's motion to sever 1196 in Civil Action 08−1220. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
203 DEFICIENT** NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 198 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Notice of Filing of EEOC Proposed Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/3/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/03/2013)
204 NOTICE by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 203 Notice (Other) Joining Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions Filing of Proposed Protective Order. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
205 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/5/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/03/2013)
206 ORDER AND REASONS denying the David Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (in limited part) in Civil Action No. 08−1220, Rec. Doc. 1355. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/15/2013. (NEF: MJ Knowles) (tsf) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
207 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 7/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit Koch Foods Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
208 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 7/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 32 of 63

07/17/2013 07/23/2013 07/23/2013
07/23/2013
07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/26/2013 07/29/2013 07/29/2013
07/29/2013 07/29/2013
07/30/2013 07/30/2013 07/31/2013

209 ORDER Setting Hearing on 207 MOTION for Protective Order , 208 MOTION for Protective Order : Motions set for ORAL HEARING 7/31/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/17/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
210 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 207 MOTION for Protective Order . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
211 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 208 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B− e−mail, # 3 Exhibit C− e−mail, # 4 Exhibit D− e−mail, # 5 Exhibit E− e−mail, # 6 Exhibit F− e−mail, # 7 Exhibit G− e−mail, # 8 Exhibit H− e−mail, # 9 Exhibit I− e−mail, # 10 Exhibit J− e−mail, # 11 Exhibit K− e−mail, # 12 Exhibit L− e−mail, # 13 Exhibit M− e−mail)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
212 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 207 MOTION for Protective Order and RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 208 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Signal's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 7/24/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/23/2013)
213 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File / Substitute Signal's Memorandum Opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
214 ORDER granting 213 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/24/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
215 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 207 MOTION for Protective Order . (plh, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
216 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Patricia A. Bollman by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/29/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/26/2013)
217 NOTICE of Objection of Signal's Intent to File Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 211 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
218 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
219 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Patricia A. Bollman by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
220 NOTICE of Supplemental Objection to Signal's Intent to File Reply. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 218 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B− e−mail)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 7/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
221 ORDER granting 218 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/30/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
222 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 208 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(plh, ) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
223 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 7/31/2013, taking under advisement 207 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 208

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 33 of 63

08/01/2013 08/09/2013 08/12/2013 08/14/2013 08/19/2013
08/22/2013 08/24/2013 09/03/2013
09/09/2013 09/09/2013
09/09/2013

MOTION for Protective Order filed by Signal International, LLC. (caa, ) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
224 ORDER granting 219 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record Patricia Anne F. Bollman for Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
225 DOCUMENT STRICKEN** NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Service of Discovery on Defendant. (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/12/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/09/2013)
226 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 225 Notice (Other). Document has been stricken pursuant to Rule 5(d) of the FRCP. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
227 Notice of Related Case(s) (Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
228 ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING IN PART 141 MOTION to Bifurcate filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but DENIED to the extent it seeks a determination of its hostile work environment pattern or practice claim and its punitive damages claim in Phase I. The EEOC is ORDERED to submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order, and a memorandum in support of its proposal, for Phase I and Phase II within fourteen (14) days of this Order as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
229 Response by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 227 Notice of Related Case(s). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− SPLC Press Release)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 8/23/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/22/2013)
230 First Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/24/2013)
231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 9/25/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 2− Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit A− EEOC Memorialization of Rule 26f Conference, # 4 Exhibit B− Intervenors Memorialization of Rule 26f Conference, # 5 Exhibit C− Signal's Initial Disclosures, # 6 Exhibit D− Signal's Supp Initial Disclosures, # 7 Exhibit E− EEOC Second Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit F− First Request for Production, # 9 Exhibit G− EEOC Second Request for Production, # 10 Exhibit H− 8−23−13 e−mail, # 11 Exhibit I− 8−26−13 e−mail from Signal, # 12 Exhibit J− 8−26−13 e−mail from EEOC, # 13 Exhibit K− List of Claimants, # 14 Exhibit L− Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
232 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 228 Order by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/10/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/09/2013)
233 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer /Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/25/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A − Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit B − Email, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
234 EXPARTE MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 34 of 63

09/10/2013
09/10/2013
09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013
09/10/2013 09/11/2013 09/17/2013 09/19/2013 09/19/2013 09/20/2013 09/20/2013 09/23/2013

235 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 234 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents. Filing attorney should have selected Yes at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
236 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 234 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Signal Responses to EEOC's Second Interrogatories)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
237 ORDER that the 207 Motion for Protective Order; and 208 Motion for Protective Order are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/10/13. (plh, ) Modified doc type on 9/10/2013 (plh, ). (Entered: 09/10/2013)
238 ORDER granting 234 Motion to Expedite. ORDERED that the 233 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/10/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
239 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order . (Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
240 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 228 Order, 231 Motion for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/11/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/10/2013)
241 ORDER granting 232 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/10/13. (cbn) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
242 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 228 Order, 231 Motion for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/18/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/17/2013)
243 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
244 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Response and Objections to EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
245 STRICKEN − PER ORDER, DOC 250: NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Notice of Filing of Proposed Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Proposed Protective Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 9/25/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)
246 STRICKEN − PER ORDER, DOC 250: NOTICE by Signal International, LLC re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, of Proposed Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Signal International, L.L.C.'s Proposed Protective Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/25/2013 (lag, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)
247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 10/9/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − EEOC First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Affidavit of Erin Hangartner, # 4 Exhibit 3 − 9−20−13 Email, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 35 of 63

09/24/2013 09/24/2013 09/25/2013
09/26/2013 09/26/2013
09/27/2013 09/27/2013 09/27/2013 09/30/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 10/01/2013
10/02/2013

248 ORDER that the 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is SET FOR ORAL HEARING on 10/9/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/24/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
249 DEFICIENT** OBJECTIONS by Signal International, LLC re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Application for T Nonimmigrant Status)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/26/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/24/2013)
250 ORDER that 245 , 246 Notices of Filing of Proposed Protective Order are STRICKEN; FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer no later than 10 days from the date of this Order to confect a protective order in conformity with this Court's reasoning in its Order dated 9/10/2013, and no later than 10 days from said date, the parties shall file said protective order for this Court's approval. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(lag, ) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
251 ORDER AND REASONS granting 184 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/26/13. (cbn) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 10/23/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Application for T Nonimmigrant Status, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
253 ORDER granting 244 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Signals Response and Objections to EEOCs Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order, on or before 9/24/2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/26/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
254 ORDER: Conference set for 10/10/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan for the purpose of discussing case management orders and other matters. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/27/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)
255 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines , MOTION to Continue by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/27/2013)
256 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/30/2013)
257 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response, and MOTION to Continue Oral Hearing by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/2/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/01/2013)
258 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines, MOTION to Continue Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
259 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Stay Litigation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
260 ORDER that the 256 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Protective Order is GRANTED. The time to file is extended to 11/4/2013. FURTHER ORDERED that the 257 MOTION for Extension of Time and Continuance of Oral Hearing is GRANTED and the 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is RESET FOR ORAL HEARING on 11/6/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/1/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
261 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Sheila A. Bedi as Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 36 of 63

10/03/2013
10/04/2013 10/04/2013 10/15/2013
10/18/2013 10/18/2013 10/21/2013 10/21/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/23/2013 10/24/2013

Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
262 ORDERED that the EEOC's 258 Motion in EEOC v. Signal, LLC, et al (12−557) is GRANTED insofar as, (1) the time for Plaintiff to file its opposition to Defendant Signal's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 252) is extended until November 1, 2013, and if Signal wishes to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, it must do so by November 7, 2013; (2) the EEOC shall file its Reply to Signal's Response and Objections to EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order (Doc. 231) on or before November 1, 2013; (3) the conference presently set for October 10, 2013 is rescheduled for November 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. The date for the conference scheduled in David et al. v. Signal et al. (08−1220) will remain October 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/3/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
263 ORDER that the 259 Motion for Stay of Litigation is DENIED without prejudice for plaintiff's to re−file a motion in the event federal government operations are not restored by November 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/4/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
264 ORDER granting 261 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sheila A. Bedi terminated for intervenor plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/4/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
265 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Signal's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
266 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 10/21/2013 12:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. The status conference on 11/8/2013 will remain in place. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/17/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
267 Second Amended Notice of Related Cases Local Rule 3.1 Statement by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 10/21/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/18/2013)
268 ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/21/2013 12:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan to discuss coordinating discovery with CA 08−1220. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/17/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
271 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/21/2013. Counsel to comply with the deadlines set forth herein. (cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
269 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ENTERED IN C.A. 08−1220, rec. doc. #1424. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/23/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
270 ORDER Status Conference held on 10/21/13 to discuss coordinating discovery in CA 08−1220 and CA 12−557. Another status conference set for 11/8/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/23/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
272 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
273 MOTION for Reconsideration re 251 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim ; by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 11/20/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 37 of 63

10/25/2013 10/28/2013 10/28/2013 10/28/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013 10/29/2013
11/01/2013 11/01/2013
11/04/2013 11/04/2013
11/05/2013

Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
274 ORDER that the parties shall meet and confer and confect a mutually−agreeableprotective order no later than 10 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(lag, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
275 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
276 ORDER granting 272 Motion to Substitute Trial Attorney Erin Casey Hangartner in place of Hal D. Ungar. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/28/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
277 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
278 ORDER granting 275 Motion to Substitute Trial Attorney, Julie Steptoe Bean in place of Steven Lee Murray for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/29/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
279 ORDER granting 277 Motion to Designate Trial Attorney Thomas Fritzsche for plaintiffs intervenors. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/29/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
280 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−e−mail, # 2 Exhibit B−e−mail, # 3 Exhibit C−e−mail, # 4 Exhibit D−e−mail, # 5 Exhibit E−e−mail, # 6 Exhibit F−e−mail, # 7 Exhibit G−e−mail, # 8 Exhibit H−e−mail, # 9 Exhibit I−e−mail, # 10 Exhibit J−e−mail, # 11 Exhibit K−e−mail, # 12 Exhibit L−e−mail, # 13 Exhibit M−e−mail, # 14 Exhibit N−Articles and cases)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
281 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− EEOC v. Koch Foods Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
282 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− EEOC First RPD, # 2 Exhibit 2− EEO Second RPD, # 3 Exhibit 3− Signal Responses to EEOC First RPD, # 4 Exhibit 4− Signal Responses to EEOC Second RPD, # 5 Exhibit 5− E−mails between counsel, # 6 Exhibit 6− Articles and Cases, # 7 Exhibit 7− Signal Amended Responses to EEOC's First Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit 8− EEOC Second Interrogatories to Signal, # 9 Exhibit 9− Signal's Responses to EEOC's Second Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit 10− EEOC's First RFA, # 11 Exhibit 11− EEOC's Rule 30b6 dep notice)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 11/4/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/01/2013)
283 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 282 Reply to Response to Motion. Document is acceptable as filed. Leave of Court is not required. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
284 JOINT MOTION/NOTICE of Filing Protective Order by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Joint Proposed Protective Order Pursuant to September 10, 2013 Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 11/5/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/04/2013)
285 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/5/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 38 of 63

11/06/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013 11/15/2013
11/18/2013

286 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 11/6/2013 re 247 MOTION for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents filed by Signal International, LLC. ORDERED that the 247 Motion for Protective Order Relative to Plaintiff EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents is DENIED. (plh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
287 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Signal's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order Regarding Immigration Discovery by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/8/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/07/2013)
288 **WITHDRAWN PER ORDER AT R. DOC. 292** MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 11/20/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/8/2013 (tsf). (Entered: 11/07/2013)
289 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File T− and U−Visa Declarations Under Seal by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
290 NOTICE by Signal International, LLC re 289 MOTION for Leave to File T− and U−Visa Declarations Under Seal, 288 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
291 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 11/15/2013 04:00 PM. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/8/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
292 ORDER granting 289 Motion to Seal 288 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. FURTHER ORDER withdrawing 288 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment per Signal's 290 Notice. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/8/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
293 ORDER granting 287 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/8/13. (cbn) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
294 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 252 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 237 Order on Motion for Protective Order. (cbn) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
295 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 273 MOTION for Reconsideration re 251 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim ; . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
296 ERROR: REFILED AS DOC. #297** MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 12/11/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/18/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/15/2013)
297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 12/11/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
305 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/15/2013. Status Conferences scheduled during 2014 in all Signal cases: 1/13/2014 12:00 PM, 4/30/2014 10:00 AM, 7/31/2014 2:00 PM, 10/30/2014 2:00 PM, and 12/17/2014 3:00 PM. Pretrial Conference in 08−1220 set for 12/17/2014 2:00 PM and Jury Trial (for the first 5 plaintiffs ONLY) set for 1/12/2015. Phase I trial in 12−557 set for 6/1/2015 09:00 AM. Parties are to comply with these and additional deadlines as set forth herein. (tsf) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
298 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 296 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c). Document was refiled as Doc. #297. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/18/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 39 of 63

11/18/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013 11/19/2013
11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/20/2013 11/26/2013
11/26/2013
11/27/2013 11/27/2013
12/02/2013

299 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) : Motion set for ORAL HEARING on 12/11/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/18/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
300 ORDER: Status conference held on 11/8/13 before Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel to comply with deadlines set forth herein. (CC: all counsel in 13−6218 and consolidated cases). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
301 Letter to the Court re §§ 706 and 707 from Erin Hangartner, counsel for Signal, dated 11/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
302 Letter to the Court re jury for Phase I trial from Erin Hangartner, counsel for Signal, dated 11/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
303 Letter to the Court re §§ 706 and 707 from Julie Bean, counsel for EEOC, dated 11/13/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
304 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Proposed Reply Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 11/20/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/19/2013)
306 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 12/17/2013 12:00 PM. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/19/2013.(tsf) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
307 ORDER granting 304 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
308 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 273 MOTION for Reconsideration re 251 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Failure to State a Claim ; . (cbn) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
309 Third Notice of Related Case 13−6218 (c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221 in USDC, SDMS) by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Werner, Daniel) Modified on 11/27/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/26/2013)
310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 12/18/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A− Signal's Responses to EEOC's First Request for Production, # 3 Exhibit B− Signal's Responses to EEOC's Second Request for Production, # 4 Exhibit C− Signal's Amended Responses to EEOC's First Requests for Production, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 11/27/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/26/2013)
311 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date. Correct date is 12/18/2013. Clerk took corrective action.(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
312 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 1/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/27/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
313 ORDER re 252 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District; ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's order prohibiting the discovery of immigration status, history, proceedings, and post−Signal employment and tax returns is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/2/2013. (gbw, ) (NEF: MJ

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 40 of 63

12/03/2013 12/03/2013
12/04/2013 12/05/2013
12/09/2013 12/09/2013 12/10/2013 12/10/2013 12/11/2013 12/17/2013 12/20/2013

Knowles) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
314 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Signal Responses to EEOC First RPD, # 2 Exhibit B− Signal Amended Responses to EEOC First RPD)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
315 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Employee spreadsheet Signal redacted and produced in David, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Emails Signal produced in both redacted and unredacted form in David, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 − Employee spreadsheet Signal redacted and produced in David, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 − Emails Signal redacted and produced in David)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
316 ORDER & REASONS re 231 MOTION for Entry of Discovery Plan and Case Management Order and oral request for clarification of the 228 Order & Reasons entered on 8/19/2013 in response to 141 MOTION to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/4/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
317 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/1/2015 02:00 PM, Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/11/2015 02:00 PM and 1 month Jury Trial− Phase I set for 6/1/2015 09:00 AM. The following Status Conferences are scheduled in all Signal cases: Telephone Status Conference set for 12/17/2013 12:00 PM and In−Person Status Conferences set for 1/13/2014 12:00 PM, 4/30/2014 10:00 AM, 7/31/2014 02:00 PM, 10/30/2014 02:00 PM, and 12/17/2014 03:00 PM. Parties are to comply with these and additional deadlines as set forth herein. Counsel are to consult the attached pretrial notice for additional detail. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/4/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (CC: All counsel of record in 08−1220 and 13−6218) (tsf) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
318 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents : Motion RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 1/13/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/9/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
319 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Rule 26(c) Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
320 ORDER granting 319 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/10/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
321 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(plh, ) (Entered: 12/10/2013)
322 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 12/11/2013 re 297 MOTION for Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) filed by Signal International, LLC. ORDERED that the 297 Motion for Protective Order is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
324 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/17/2013. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
323 ORDER that the 297 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/20/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 41 of 63

01/02/2014 01/03/2014
01/09/2014
01/09/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/10/2014
01/13/2014 01/13/2014 01/13/2014
01/13/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/20/2014

325 NOTICE of Change of Address of Erin Casey Hangartner, Alan Dean Weinberger, Hal D. Ungar, and Elham R. Rabbani by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
326 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1 (Signal's Privilege Log re EEOC's 1st RFP), # 2 Exhibit A−2 (Signal's Redaction Log re EEOC's 1st RFP), # 3 Exhibit A−3 (Signal's Non−Responsive Document Log re EEOC 1st RFP), # 4 Exhibit B − 9−20−13 letter to EEOC Litigation Support, # 5 Exhibit C − Supplemental Answers to EEOC RFP with green highlights)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 1/29/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A− Signal's Second Requests for Production, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
328 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Emergency Motion for Limited Protective Order (Opposed) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
329 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 328 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Emergency Motion for Limited Protective Order (Opposed) . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
330 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− Plaintiff's Reply, # 2 Exhibit 2− Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
331 ORDER that the 328 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Emergency Motion for Limited Protective Order (Opposed) is granted. ORDERED that plaintiff's 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) is SET FOR ORAL HEARING on 1/22/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/10/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
332 ORDER granting 330 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/13/14. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
333 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
334 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 1/13/2014 re 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ORDERED that the 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
346 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/13/2014. Status Conference set for 2/21/2014 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
335 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
336 ORDER denying 273 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/15/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
337 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Pleadings Under Seal by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/21/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered:

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 42 of 63

01/21/2014
01/21/2014 01/21/2014 01/22/2014
01/22/2014
01/22/2014 01/22/2014 01/22/2014
01/24/2014
01/27/2014 01/28/2014

01/20/2014)
338 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in Support of 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− EEOC's Second Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2− Signal's Amended Responses to EEOC's Second Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 3− Signal's Responses to EEOC's Requests for Admissions)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
339 ORDER granting 337 Motion for Leave to File Pleadings Under Seal by Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
340 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
341 ***STRICKEN PER DOCUMENT 376 *** MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission) (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support − SEALED, # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts − SEALED) (tsf). Modified on 2/13/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 01/22/2014)
342 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Protective Order filed in Related Case 08−1220 at Rec. Doc. 913 and MOTION to File that Protective Order and Amendment into this Case by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission)(tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 01/22/2014)
343 ORDER granting 340 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/22/14. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
344 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International, LLC, in Opposition of 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
345 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 1/22/2014 re 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ORDERED that the 327 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order (Limited Protective Order) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has an extension of time of ten days to respond to defendant's discovery requests. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
347 ORDER Setting/Resetting Hearing on 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION to File this Protective Order and Amendment into this Case : IT IS ORDERED that Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order be set before Judge Morgan. Any memorandum in opposition shall be filed by January 29, 2014. The Court has deemed oral argument unnecessary, as submission on the pleadings is sufficient. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
348 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Reset and Consolidate Hearing on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 1/27/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 01/27/2014)
349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Proposed ESI Protocol, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 43 of 63

01/28/2014
01/29/2014 01/29/2014 01/29/2014
01/29/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014 01/31/2014 01/31/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014
02/04/2014

Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Errata V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
350 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite plaintiffs' motion for entry of order regarding protocol for production of ESI by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
351 ORDER denying 348 Motion to Reset and Consolidate Hearing. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
352 ORDER re 349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . Any opposition shall be filed by 2/4/2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
353 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Memorandum in Opposition 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION for Protective Order by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified on 1/30/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2014: # 3 Proposed Pleading) (bwn). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
354 ORDER Status Conference set for 2/6/2014 12:00 PM to discuss discovery issues with electronically stored information, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014.(tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
355 ORDER denying 350 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
356 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION to File this Protective Order and Amendment into this Case . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
357 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (Production) by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/31/2014 to edit referral (bwn). (Entered: 01/31/2014)
358 ORDER granting 353 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/30/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
359 ORDER granting 357 Motion for Extension of Production Deadlines as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 2/3/14. (plh, ) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
360 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
361 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Modify Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/4/2014 (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2014: # 2 Proposed Pleading − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 02/03/2014)
362 ORDER granting 361 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Modify Protective Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 44 of 63

02/04/2014 02/04/2014
02/04/2014
02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014
02/06/2014
02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/11/2014

363 Sealed Reply Memorandum by Signal International, L.L.C. re 342 Motion to Modify Protective Order. (bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
364 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 349 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − EEOC 12−12−13 letter, # 2 Exhibit 2 − SPLC 12−13−13 letter, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excel spreadsheet, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Affidavit of Matthew Blonde)(Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/10/2014: # 6 Exhibit SIGE0057104 − SIGE0057105) (caa, ). (Entered: 02/04/2014)
365 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
366 ORDER granting 365 Motion to Seal Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
367 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to Supplement Exhibits re Doc. 1490 (2:08cv1220) by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit SIGE0057104−SIGE0057105)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/6/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/05/2014)
368 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Out of Time Response/Reply as to 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 2/6/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/05/2014)
369 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
370 MOTION to Strike 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 342 MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION to File this Protective Order and Amendment into this Case and Strike Statement of Uncontested Material Facts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/26/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
377 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on February 6, 2014, at 12:00 p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel for the parties discussed the discovery issues and production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), David v. Signal (08−1220)(the "David case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) (the "Achari cases"). Parties are directed to comply with the dates set forth herein. The next in−person status conference will be held on February 21, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in Judge Morgan's chambers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (tbl) [Docketed in 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 and its consolidated cases] (Entered: 02/14/2014)
371 ORDER granting 367 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014. (caa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
372 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
374 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/11/2014. The Court granted Signal's request to depose plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally for four (4) days. The Court ordered Signal to pay the costs associated with changing the witness' flights. The Court will hold an additional telephone status conference on February 13, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. The Court ordered Signal to file its answer by Monday, February 17, 2014. (bwn) (Entered: 02/12/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 45 of 63

02/12/2014 02/12/2014 02/12/2014
02/13/2014
02/17/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/19/2014 02/21/2014
02/21/2014 02/28/2014

373 SEALED RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenors re Signal's 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2014: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 02/12/2014)
375 ORDER granting 368 MOTION for Leave to File Out of Time Response/Reply as to 341 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
376 ORDER AND REASONS − The EEOC's 370 Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike Signal's 341 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontested Facts be and hereby is GRANTED, and those two pleadings are STRICKEN from the record. To the extent the EEOC's motion also seeks to strike Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike is DENIED, and the Court will rule on Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order by separate order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/12/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
378 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on February 13, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel for the parties discussed the discovery issues and production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), David v. Signal (08−1220)(the "David case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) (the "Achari cases"). Parties are directed to comply with the deadlines/schedule set forth herein. (tbl) [Docketed in 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 and its consolidated cases] (Entered: 02/14/2014)
379 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Signal International, LLC to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/18/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/17/2014)
380 CLAWBACK ORDER. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/14/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
381 ORDER granting 379 Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Signal International, LLC to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
382 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to 179 Intervenor's First Amended Complaint in Intervention, with Jury Demand by Signal International, LLC.(bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
383 ORDER Regarding Protocols for the Production of Electronically Stored Information. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 List of Custodians)(bwn) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
384 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 6, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/22/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
386 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/21/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
385 ***WITHDRAWN PER ORDER SIGNED 3/27/2014*** MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel by EEOC Plaintiffs−Intervenors and David Plaintiffs. Motion set for 3/26/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Safe Harbor Notice, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Fritzsche, Thomas) Modified docket text on 3/3/2014 (jtd). Modified on 3/27/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 02/28/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 46 of 63

03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014 03/10/2014
03/11/2014
03/12/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/24/2014

387 FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. 317 Scheduling Order of December 5, 2013 remains in effect except as modified herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/7/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
388 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
389 ORDER granting 388 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs Intervenors' First Amended Complaint in Intervention. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
390 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to 179 Intervenor Complaint, by Signal International, LLC.(bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
391 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/10/2014. Status Conference set for 3/11/2014 01:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Judge Morgan ordered the defendants in the David case and the Achari cases to file their answers to the recently filed amended complaints by March 24, 2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
392 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/11/2014. Counsel for Signal will produce an additional 200,000 documents without review by March 17, 2014 due to the removal of these defensive search terms. Judge Morgan extended Signal's deadline to review emails and produce a privilege log to March 31, 2014.The Court directed those defendants with pending motions to dismiss to file a brief memorandum within 7 days of this order clarifying their intention to reassert their motions to dismiss with respect to the amended complaints. (bwn) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
393 FIRST AMENDED ORDER REGARDING PROTOCOLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/12/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
394 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 385 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
395 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Dominic J. Gianna and Middleberg Riddle & Gianna as Attorney of Record by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
396 ORDER − The Court will conduct a telephone status conference in EEOC v. Signal (12−557), David v. Signal (08−1220), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) on March 24, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
397 ORDER granting 395 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Dominic Joseph Gianna terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
402 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/24/2014. The Court directed counsel for plaintiffs in the David case to amend their complaint to include which law their state law claims arise under by March 31, 2014. Judge Morgan ordered counsel for Signal to file a supplemental memorandum by April 7, 2014 discussing why Signal's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted in light of plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs may file a response to Signal's supplemental memorandum by April 14, 2014. The Court granted leave for the plaintiffs in the Achari cases to file a response to the memoranda filed by Signal and the Burnett defendants4 by March 31, 2014. The Court also allowed Signal to file a brief response to the plaintiffs' memoranda by April 7, 2014. Judge Morgan ordered counsel for the Dewan defendants to enroll as counsel of record in the Achari cases by March 31, 2014. Judge Morgan also ordered counsel for the Dewan defendants to file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to plaintiffs' amended complaints in the Achari cases by April 7, 2014. The Court moved the next status conference, previously scheduled for April 30, 2014, to April 29, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. Judge Morgan scheduled oral argument on Signal's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the David case, and the motions to dismiss in the Achari cases filed by Signal and the Burnett

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 47 of 63

03/25/2014
03/27/2014 03/31/2014 04/02/2014 04/15/2014 04/21/2014 04/29/2014
05/05/2014 05/06/2014 05/06/2014 05/07/2014 05/09/2014

defendants, for April 29, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (bwn) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
398 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document re 385 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Tsu, Naomi) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/26/2014: # 1 Proposed Order) (bwn). (Entered: 03/25/2014)
399 ORDER granting 398 Motion to Withdraw 385 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
400 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Brian C. Roux by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
401 ORDER granting 400 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Brian C. Roux for Signal International, LLC, and Signal International, Inc. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/1/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
403 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 338 Supplemental Memorandum, 310 MOTION to Compel Responses to EEOC's First and Second Requests for Production of Documents Notice of Scheduled Depositions and Pendency of Motion. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
404 ORDER that the 310 Motion to Compel Responses to Its First and Second Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/21/14. (plh) Modified doc type on 4/21/2014 (plh). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
412 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/29/2014. The Court ordered counsel for Signal to send the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices in the EEOC case, the David case, and the Achari cases to counsel for plaintiffs in the Texas cases. The Court ordered the depositions of Signal employees to begin on Mondays and instructed counsel for all parties to inform deponents that they must be available the entire week. The Court extended the deadline for the depositions of Signal's employees to July 11, 2014. The Court directed counsel for Signal to distribute an updated chart by May 5, 2014 outlining its Rule (30)(b)(6) designees, the topics on which the witnesses will testify, and the dates on which the depositions will occur. The Court ordered counsel for all parties to meet and confer regarding Signal's proposed schedule. (bwn) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. Motion set for 5/21/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 5/6/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 05/05/2014)
406 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
407 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite re 405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
408 ORDER denying 405 MOTION to Modify by Signal International, LLC re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/7/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
409 MOTION to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 6/4/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/09/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 48 of 63

05/09/2014 05/12/2014 05/13/2014
05/13/2014 05/13/2014
05/14/2014
05/16/2014 05/20/2014
05/20/2014 05/21/2014 06/02/2014 06/05/2014
06/09/2014 06/23/2014 06/25/2014

410 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
411 ORDER granting 410 Motion to Expedite. Any party wishing to support or oppose the EEOC's Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions must file a memorandum by Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
413 ORDER re 404 Order on Motion to Compel. ORDERED that Signal must comply with this Court's order no later than Thursday, May 14, 2014 with respect to Paragraphs 1 and 3 in its position paper. With respect to paragraph 2, Signal must comply no later than Friday, May 23, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/13/14.(plh) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
414 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 409 MOTION to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
415 NOTICE of Change of Address by Daniel Werner on behalf of Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
416 ORDER denying 409 Motion to Exclude Witnesses from Depositions. The Court will allow one representative of Signal to be present during the depositions of other Signal employees in their representative and individual capacities. The Court will not prevent Signal's employee witnesses from reviewing prior deposition testimony. Signal's request for costs is denied. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
417 Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
418 ORDER − The Court will conduct a telephone status conference in EEOC v. Signal (12−557), David v. Signal (08−1220), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) on May 21, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions necessary to participate in the conference via telephone. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
419 Motion to Transfer For Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings re MDL 2554 by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Schedule of Actions, # 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement, # 5 Correspondence, # 6 Proof of Service)(bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
420 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 5/21/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
421 ORDER clarifying Court's previous order 387 relating to depositions taken in David v. Signal (08−1220) (the "David case"), EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218, c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732) (the "Achari cases"). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
422 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Partial Relief from Protective Order by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
423 ORDER granting 422 Motion Partial Relief from Protective Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
424 ORDER − Telephone Status Conference set for 6/25/2014 11:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
426 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/25/2014. Status Conference set for 7/28/2014 04:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (caa) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 49 of 63

06/27/2014
06/30/2014 07/01/2014 07/02/2014 07/07/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014 07/08/2014
07/09/2014 07/11/2014 07/28/2014 07/28/2014
07/30/2014 07/30/2014 08/01/2014

425 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Thomas Fritzsche as Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fritzsche, Thomas) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
427 ORDER granting 425 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Thomas P. Fritzsche terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/30/2014. (caa) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
428 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Lance R. Rydberg by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
429 ORDER granting 428 Motion to Enroll Attorney Lance R. Rydberg as Additional Counsel of Record for Signal International, LLC,Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
433 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/7/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
430 Response/Reply by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re Docket #1653 in related David case (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
431 ORDER − Upon request by counsel, the Court extended the deadline for oppositions to the Dewan Defendants' motion for protective order to July 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
432 ORDER − Upon request by counsel, the Court extended the deadline for oppositions to the Dewan Defendants' motion for protective order to July 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
434 ORDER re Deadlines for Expert Reports. In the David case, plaintiffs' reports in the Global Categories are due on August 20, 2014. In the Achari case and the Chakkiyattil case, plaintiffs' reports in the Global Categories are due on December 31, 2014. These reports must be provided by August 20, 2014 in the David case and by December 31, 2014 in the Achari case and the Chakkiyattil case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/8/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
435 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 7/30/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
436 ORDER AND REASONS − IT IS ORDERED that Burnett's Motion for Protective Order be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
437 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Further Supporting Motion to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
450 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/28/2014. Signals 435 motion to bifurcate filed in the David case, the EEOC case, and the Achari cases be and here by is DENIED as moot. Counsel for the parties in the EEOC case shall comply with the deadlines herein in anticipation of the June 1, 2015 jury trial. (bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
438 ORDER granting 437 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Further Supporting Motion to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
439 Reply Memorandum by Signal International, LLC to 435 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees (bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
440 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 8/27/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Notice of

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 50 of 63

08/01/2014 08/03/2014
08/03/2014
08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014
08/05/2014 08/05/2014 08/12/2014 08/13/2014
08/15/2014 08/18/2014

Submission, # 5 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
441 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Signal's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 8/1/2014 to remove submission info (bwn). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
442 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 440 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2014)
443 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2014)
444 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal to Opposition of Plaintiffs to Motion for Leave to Supplement Fact Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
445 ORDER granting 443 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document. (bwn) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
446 ORDER granting 441 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
447 ORDER denying 440 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Fact Witness List in the David case, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER denying as moot 440 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Fact Witness List in the EEOC and Achari cases, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER quashing 440 Motion to Notice Depositions for August 5 and 6, 2014, as further stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/4/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
448 SEALED RESPONSE in Opposition filed by All Plaintiff−Intervenors re 440 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2014: # 1 SEALED Exhibit A) (tsf). (Entered: 08/05/2014)
449 ORDER finding as moot 444 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal to Opposition to Plaintiffs to Motion for Leave to Supplement Fact Witness List. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
451 ORDER Denying MDL Transfer and Consolidation. Signed by MDL Panel.(bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
452 Notice of Related Case(s) (Fourth Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan of related case(s) 14−01818. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
453 DEFICIENT: NOTICE of Appearance by Ylda Marisol Kopka on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Ylda Marisol Kopka added to party Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(pty:pla).(Kopka, Ylda) Modified on 8/15/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 08/15/2014)
454 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 342 Motion to Amend/Correct Protective Order Filed in Related Case, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/18/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 51 of 63

08/20/2014
08/21/2014 08/28/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 09/04/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/06/2014 09/08/2014
09/08/2014 09/09/2014 09/11/2014

455 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July 28, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Related to 08−1220, 13−6218, 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732; applies to all cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/18/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
456 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Ylda Kopka by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
457 ORDER granting 456 Motion to Enroll Attorney Yida Marisol Kopka as Additional Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
458 NOTICE by Signal International, LLC of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
463 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/29/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 9/24/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/5/2014 to edit submission info (bwn). (Entered: 09/04/2014)
460 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA − Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the Magistrate Judge. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
461 ORDER that the 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 9/24/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/5/14.(plh) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
462 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 9/24/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/8/2014 to remove referral (bwn). (Entered: 09/06/2014)
464 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on April 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/8/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
465 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that any opposition to the 462 Motion for Protective Order be filed in the record by September 11, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET for September 16, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel in all of the above−captioned matters are required to participate. The Court will provide call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
466 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
467 ORDER granting 466 Motion for Extension of Time to File Witness and Exhibit Lists. The deadline for the parties to exchange witness and exhibit lists is hereby extended for a period of 7 days, from September 12, 2014 to September 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 52 of 63

09/11/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/17/2014 09/17/2014
09/18/2014
09/19/2014
09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/23/2014
09/24/2014 09/24/2014

468 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 462 MOTION for Protective Order . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
469 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
494 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 9/16/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
470 ORDER that the 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA is RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 10/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/17/14.(plh) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
471 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on August 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/16/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
472 MOTION to Stay re 313 ORDER re 252 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 10/8/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/19/2014 to remove referral (bwn). (Entered: 09/18/2014)
473 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) − Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the District Judge. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
474 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
475 Exhibit List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
476 Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
477 Exhibit List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 10/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A− Signal's Answers to Third Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit B− Signal's Responses to Third RPD's, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
479 ORDER that the 478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production is SET FOR ORAL HEARING 10/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/24/14.(plh) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
480 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue as to 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 9/25/2014 (caa). (Entered: 09/24/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 53 of 63

09/25/2014
09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014 09/30/2014
09/30/2014 09/30/2014 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 10/03/2014
10/07/2014
10/09/2014

481 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 480 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is MOTION to Continue. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. No further action necessary at this time. (caa) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
484 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Mitchell Hasenkampf by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
485 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Motion for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization Under Seal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
486 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production by Signal International, LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
487 ORDER Granting in Part 480 Motion to Continue as to 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Oppositions are due by October 8, 2014. Replies are due by October 13, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
488 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice James L. Cornblatt (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−4609034) by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of James L. Cornblatt, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Bollman, Patricia) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
489 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
490 ORDER re: 486 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ORDERED that the motion is granted in part to the extent that Signal International, L.L.C. shall file its opposition no later than 10/3/2014 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/1/14. (plh) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
491 ORDER granting 484 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Mitchell P. Hasenkampf for Signal International, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
492 ORDER granting 485 Motion to File Motion for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
493 ORDER granting 488 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to James L. Cornblatt. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
495 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 478 MOTION to Compel Responses to Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production, 459 MOTION to Quash Filed Relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to RSA : Motions RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 10/22/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/3/14.(plh) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
497 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 472 MOTION to Stay re 313 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, MOTION To Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
498 MOTION for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization/Restructuring, and/or Transfer, Sale or Assignment of Assets, Property, or Stock by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 54 of 63

10/14/2014 10/16/2014 10/20/2014 10/20/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/27/2014 10/28/2014

Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission) (bwn) Modified on 10/10/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 10/09/2014)
499 ORDER AND REASONS denying 472 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal or Alternatively to Stay Pending Application for Mandamus Relief. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
501 MOTION for Leave to File To File Motion for Sanctions Against EEOC by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 11/5/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
502 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 501 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Sanctions Against EEOC. Signal may file its motion for sanctions immediately. Expedited relief must be requested in a separate motion. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
505 ORDER that the 478 Motion to Compel Responses to Its Third Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED IN PART AS UNOPPOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/21/14. (plh) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
506 ORDER that the 459 Motion to Quash filed relating to Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to RSA is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that the oral hearing set on 10/22/2014 is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/21/14. (plh) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
507 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
508 EXPARTE/CONSENT Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 10/23/2014 to remove submission date (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/23/2014: # 3 Proposed Order) (bwn). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
509 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 507 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
510 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 508 Emergency MOTION to Expedite Hearing on EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time − Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (bwn) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
511 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 498 MOTION for Order Requiring Signal to Provide Advance Notice of Reorganization/Restructuring, and/or Transfer, Sale or Assignment of Assets, Property, or Stock. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
512 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the 507 Motion to Continue is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Signal's Motion for Sanctions by November 11, 2014. Signal may seek leave to file a reply memorandum. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 508 Motion for Expedited Consideration is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
514 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/28/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 55 of 63

10/30/2014 11/03/2014 11/04/2014
11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/07/2014
11/10/2014 11/10/2014 11/14/2014 11/19/2014
12/02/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014 12/05/2014 12/05/2014 12/08/2014 12/11/2014

525 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/30/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
515 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
517 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum Opposing EEOC's Motion for Order Requiring Notice by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
518 ORDER granting 517 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Memorandum Opposing EEOC's Motion for Order Requiring Notice. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
519 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 498 MOTION. (bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
520 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET in the above captioned matters for November 10, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the possibility of mediation in the David case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
521 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 503 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 11 . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
531 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
523 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Designations by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
524 ORDER granting 523 Motion for Extension of Time to File Expert Designations. The deadline for Signal to file its expert reports shall be December 5, 2014 and EEOC shall have until January 9, 2015 to file any rebuttal reports. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/19/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
526 ORDER − The parties shall adhere to the deadlines herein in preparation for the June 1, 2015 jury trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/30/2014.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2014: # 1 Pre−Trial Notice Revised September 2014) (bwn). (Entered: 12/02/2014)
527 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
528 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
529 ORDER granting 528 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal file an opposition by December 8, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
530 NOTICE by Signal International, LLC of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
532 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 527 MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
533 MOTION to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 56 of 63

12/11/2014 12/11/2014 12/13/2014 12/16/2014 12/23/2014
12/23/2014 01/23/2015
01/23/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/29/2015

534 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on EEOC's Motion to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
535 ORDER re 531 Telephone Status Conference. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/11/2014.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/11/2014: # 1 Permitted Redactions) (bwn). (Entered: 12/11/2014)
537 ORDER granting 534 Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite. FURTHER ORDER that Signal shall file a response by December 16, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/13/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 12/13/2014)
538 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 533 MOTION to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
540 ORDER DENYING 533 MOTION to Strike Signal's Expert Witness Disclosure and Expert Witness Reports. Signal shall provide new expert reports to EEOC by December 24, 2014. The reports may not add any information or opinions not contained in the original report. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EEOC's rebuttal expert deadline is continued to February 9, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties adhere to the deadlines herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/22/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
542 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 527 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The fact discovery deadline is extended to February 27, 2015 but only with respect to Knights. Plaintiff may move the Court, if necessary, for a similar extension for RSA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain unchanged. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
543 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 21, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Applies to all cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
544 SEALED ORDER denying 462 Motion for Protective Order, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/19/2015. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2015: # 1 SEALED Attachment, # 2 SEALED Attachment, # 3 SEALED Attachment, # 4 SEALED Attachment, # 5 SEALED Attachment, # 6 SEALED Attachment) (tsf). (Entered: 01/23/2015)
545 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Dr. Louise Shelley by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
546 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Ron McAlear by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
547 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Don Strobel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
548 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on May 21, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Reference: 08−1220, 13−6218 c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732) Applies to All Cases. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/29/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 57 of 63

02/04/2015 02/04/2015 02/05/2015 02/06/2015
02/06/2015 02/08/2015
02/08/2015 02/08/2015 02/09/2015 02/19/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015 02/20/2015
02/23/2015

549 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Robert A. Canino added to party Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(pty:pla).(Canino, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
550 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Robert A. Canino to be substituted in place of Julie Steptoe Bean as TRIAL ATTORNEY by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
551 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Witness Report. (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
552 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on October 30, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Applies to all cases. (Reference: 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732, 14−1818) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2015. (rsg) Modified on 2/6/2015 (rsg). (Entered: 02/06/2015)
553 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 549 Motion to Appear as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/5/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
554 ***FILED IN ERROR − See 555 for Corrected Filing*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Attorney Oath, # 3 Proposed Order Enrolling Counsel of Record)(Bean, Julie) Modified on 2/9/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 02/08/2015)
555 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Bean, Julie) (Entered: 02/08/2015)
556 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Robert Canino to be substituted in place of Julie Bean by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Bean, Julie) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/9/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (bwn). (Entered: 02/08/2015)
557 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that due to an ongoing trial, the status conference scheduled in these matters on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 is CONTINUED to Monday, March 2, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/9/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
559 ORDER − In anticipation of the status conference on March 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.; IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit a joint proposed agenda by February 25, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
561 ORDER finding as moot 550 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
562 ORDER granting 555 Motion to Enroll Robert A. Canino as Additional Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
563 ORDER granting 556 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Julie Steptoe Bean terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
564 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Chandra Bhatnagar as Attorney by Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Kechuru Dhananjaya, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
566 ORDER granting 564 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Chandra S. Bhatnagar. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 58 of 63

02/26/2015 02/26/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015
03/02/2015 03/02/2015
03/04/2015 03/05/2015 03/06/2015

569 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Steven Murray as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
570 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Marsha L. Rucker as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rucker, Marsha) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
571 ORDER granting 569 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Steven Lee Murray terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
572 ORDER granting 570 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Marsha Lynn Rucker terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
574 MOTION to Exclude Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Kevin Fox Gotham by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion set for 3/25/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Miller, Gerald) Modified on 3/3/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 03/02/2015)
575 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Dr. Victoria Esses by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 3/25/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
576 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Dr. Kevin T. Jackson by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 3/25/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit A−1, # 5 Exhibit AA, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit B−1, # 8 Exhibit BB, # 9 Exhibit C, # 10 Exhibit C−1, # 11 Exhibit CC, # 12 Exhibit D, # 13 Exhibit D−1)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
577 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Jacob L. Vigdor by Signal International, LLC. Motion set for 3/25/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
579 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/2/2015. All motions requesting entry of final judgment shall be filed by March 16, 2015. If the Court enters final judgment, all motions for summary judgment regarding claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion shall be filed by May 4, 2015. The parties discussed the motions pending in the EEOC Case. For the reasons stated orally and on the record, EEOC's Motion to Provide Notice and Signal's Countermotion for Sanctions are DENIED. By March 23, 2015, Plaintiffs in each of the consolidated Achari Cases shall provide the Court a summary of their claims in chart format similar to the chart attached to the Sixth Amended Complaint in the David Case. For the reasons stated orally and on the record, Signal's Motions to Continue in the consolidated Achari cases are GRANTED IN PART. The Court will grant Signal additional time to depose Plaintiffs. The status conference currently set for April 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. is CONVERTED to a telephone status conference. (bwn) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
578 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) Modified on 3/5/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 03/04/2015)
580 ORDER − The parties shall adhere to the deadlines herein in preparation for the June 1, 2015 jury trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/4/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Pre−Trial Notice)(bwn) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
581 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on March 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/4/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 59 of 63

03/11/2015
03/11/2015
03/11/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/16/2015 03/17/2015
03/17/2015
03/18/2015 03/18/2015

584 ***DEFICIENT*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(Meaghan Shepard) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Sworn Oath, # 3 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) Modified on 3/12/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 03/11/2015)
585 ***DEFICIENT*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Joel P. Clark) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Sworn Oath, # 3 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) Modified on 3/12/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 03/11/2015)
586 ORDER granting 578 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Suzanne M. Anderson for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/10/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
587 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 574 MOTION to Exclude Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Kevin Fox Gotham . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
588 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 577 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Jacob L. Vigdor . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
589 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 576 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Dr. Kevin T. Jackson . (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
590 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 545 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Dr. Louise Shelley . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
591 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 547 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Don Strobel . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
592 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 575 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Dr. Victoria Esses . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
593 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International, LLC re 546 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Ron McAlear . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
594 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Joel P. Clark) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cert of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Statement Under Oath, # 3 Exhibit ECF Form, # 4 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
595 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meaghan L. Shepard) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cert of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Statement Under Oath, # 3 Exhibit ECF Form, # 4 Proposed Order)(Canino, Robert) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
597 ORDER granting 594 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Joel P. Clark for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
598 ORDER granting 595 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Meaghan L. Shepard for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 60 of 63

03/26/2015 03/30/2015 03/30/2015 03/30/2015 03/30/2015 03/30/2015 04/01/2015
04/07/2015 04/08/2015 04/14/2015 04/15/2015 04/15/2015 04/20/2015 04/20/2015 04/20/2015 04/21/2015

600 ORDER − In anticipation of the telephone status conference on April 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.; IT IS ORDERED that the parties submit a joint proposed agenda by March 30, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/26/2015)
601 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 547 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Don Strobel . (Miller, Gerald) Modified on 3/30/2015 (bwn). Modified on 3/30/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 03/30/2015)
602 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 601 Reply to Response to Motion − Document no longer deemed deficient. (bwn) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
603 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 576 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Dr. Kevin T. Jackson . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A−1, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit D−1, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit E−1)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
604 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 575 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Dr. Victoria Esses . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
605 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International, LLC re 577 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Report and Testimony of Jacob L. Vigdor . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
606 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 4/1/2015. The Burnett Defendants and the Dewan Defendants have filed a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on Signal's crossclaims. Signal does not oppose the Motion. For the reasons stated orally and on the record, the Motion is GRANTED. The David Plaintiffs and the Burnett Defendants have submitted proposed final judgments. Any objections are due by April 10, 2015. Responses to the objections are due by April 17, 2015. The David Plaintiffs requested to unseal an Order and related briefing with respect to a previously−filed motion to stay. Any objections are due by April 8, 2015. Responses are due by April 11, 2015. The Court set an in−person status conference in the EEOC Case for April 24, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiff Intervenors may participate by telephone. The parties discussed the Motion to Compel a Meet−and−Confer filed by the Achari Plaintiffs. Because the parties met and conferred during the telephone status conference, the Motion is GRANTED. If Signal's responses do not address Plaintiffs' concerns to their satisfaction, Plaintiffs may file a motion to compel and set it for submission before the undersigned. (bwn) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
607 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Ylda Kopka as Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
608 ORDER granting 607 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ylda Marisol Kopka terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
610 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for submitting exhibit lists is CONTINUED AND RESET for April 20, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
611 Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
612 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
613 ORDER − In anticipation of the status conference on 4/24/2015 at 1:30 p.m.; ORDERED that the parties submit a joint proposed agenda by 4/21/2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/18/2015.(blg) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
614 Exhibit List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit −Exhibit List)(Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
615 Exhibit List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
616 Jointly Proposed Agenda for Status Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for (Miller, Gerald) (Entered: 04/21/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 61 of 63

04/24/2015 04/27/2015 04/28/2015 04/29/2015 04/30/2015 05/01/2015 05/05/2015 05/05/2015 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 05/06/2015 05/07/2015
05/12/2015 05/12/2015
06/01/2015 06/01/2015 06/02/2015

617 ORDER that any motion to continue based on the Bass Pro appeal shall be filed by May 1, 2015. Responses are due by May 8, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/24/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
619 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/27/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
620 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/27/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Pre−Trial Notice)(bwn) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
621 Amended Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
622 Amended Witness List by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
623 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Trial by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
624 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 623 MOTION to Continue Trial Jointly with Plaintiff Intervenors. (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
625 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Ivy Suriyopas as Attorney by Plaintiffs−Intervenors. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
626 Joint Statement of the Case Phase I Trial by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Signal International, LLC. (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
627 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
628 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Signal International, LLC. (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
629 Proposed Voir Dire by Signal International, LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
630 Proposed Pretrial Order For Phase I Trial by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Signal International, LLC (Canino, Robert) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
631 ORDER GRANTING 623 MOTION to Continue Trial. IT IS ORDERED that trial is CONTINUED WITHOUT DATE. The Court's scheduling order is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pre−trial conference currently set for May 11, 2015 is CANCELLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties notify the Court as soon as the Fifth Circuit has ruled in Bass Pro. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
632 ORDER granting 625 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ivy O. Suriyopas terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
633 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the above−captioned matter is STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a motion to re−open the case within 30 days of the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Bass Pro. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
636 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET in all cases for June 2, 2015, at 11:30 a.m. The Court's judicial assistant will circulate call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/31/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
637 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Signal identify all actions before this Court in which it has filed crossclaims by June 3, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
639 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 6/2/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 62 of 63

06/03/2015 06/29/2015
07/13/2015 07/14/2015 07/16/2015 09/09/2015 10/14/2015 10/20/2015
11/06/2015
12/14/2015
02/03/2016 02/04/2016 08/05/2016

638 Memorandum by Signal International, LLC re 637 Order (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
642 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on June 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (Reference: All Cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
643 NOTICE OF FILING BANKRUPTCY by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
644 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/14/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
645 ORDER − Signal has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Because all claims against Signal are automatically stayed, and for the reasons stated orally and on the record during the status conference on July 14, 2015; IT IS ORDERED that the following motions herein are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/15/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
646 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/9/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
647 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is hereby set in all cases for Tuesday, October 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. The Courts judicial assistant will provide the call−in instructions necessary to participate in the conference via telephone. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/13/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
648 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/20/2015. IT IS ORDERED that the submission date on Plaintiffs re−urged bill of costs is continued to Friday, October 30, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Dewan Defendants may file a reply memorandum in further support of their motion for supersedeas bond by Friday, October 30, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Signal notify the Court of the status of Signals appeal by Tuesday, November 3, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
649 ORDER − Due to a conflict in the Courts calendar, the status conference in the above matter presently scheduled for Monday, November 9, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. is CONTINUED to Monday, December 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. and hereby CONVERTED to a telephone status conference. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions necessary to participate in the conference via telephone. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
650 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/14/2015. IT IS ORDERED that all pre−trial deadlines and trial dates in all actions are hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Burnett Defendants and the Dewan Defendants shall file motions for summary judgment on Signals remaining crossclaims no later than Monday, December 28, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal shall file a response to the Burnett and Dewan Defendants motions for summary judgment no later than Friday, January 15, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
651 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Hal D. Ungar as Attorney by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
652 ORDER granting 651 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Hal D. Ungar terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
654 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Srinivasa Reddy Dalli and Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla shall communicate with their respective counsel within sixty (60) days of the date this Order is filed into the record to communicate with their

Case: 2:12-cv-557 As of: 11/11/2017 05:28 PM CST 63 of 63

11/16/2016 11/17/2016 12/29/2016

counsel and/or or this Court, and advise whether they will participate in the pending settlement. The failure of these plaintiffs to communicate with their counsel and/or this Court, as ordered, will result in the immediate dismissal with prejudice of all pending claims these plaintiffs have against the Dewan Defendants due to failure to prosecute this case pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/5/16. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment to Order, # 2 Attachment to Order)(cg) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
655 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Brian C. Roux as Attorney by Signal International, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
656 ORDER granting 655 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brian C. Roux terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/17/2016. (cg) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
657 JUDGMENT as per herein − IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that any and all causes of action and/or claims plaintiffs Srinivasa Reddy Dalli and Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla had, or may have had, against Sachin Dewan and/or Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in this Court are hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute their claims pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/28/2016.(cg) (Entered: 12/29/2016)