Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 1 Filed 03/08/2005 Page 1 of 5
J

1

- WILLIAM R. TAMAYO #084965 (CA)

DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN - #063321 (CA)

2

ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES - # 205412 (CA)

3

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office

4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

5

San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 Telephone No. (415)625-5658

E-filing

6

Fax No. (415) 625-5657

0$.

'.
. C'.'j,'

~;.;~p,&

"f (Cr, c.

.4

' V'~'',.y.7.",k '.; ", .

"1'//... .9.

<-f+yVs~;',;I,U-.:/..".1)-".;/ 'I1.'',//-

" I/

'!,:/ u:,f>C')'f''1. I'~-, C:. <:'0 c.

'(4(}/-y)' 'Y1-~:

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11

12 13

c) ~}~Ac!~.6!1 E

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)
)

c

14

Plaintiff,

15

v.

) )

) COMPLAINT

16 LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC
17 AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AND FIRST AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE,
18

) ) ) )

Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

19

Defendants.

)

)

20

)

21

NATURE OF THE ACTION

22 This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
23 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide
24
25 appropriate relief to Charging Party Anne Wei and other similarly situated individuals (the

26 claimants) who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged below, defendants LEXUS 27 OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, mc., and FIRST AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE 28

COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION NO.

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 1 Filed 03/08/2005 Page 2 of 5

1 subjected the claimants to a hostile work environment based on sex, female.

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuantto 28 U.S.c. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343,
4

5

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII ofthe

6 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and §1O2of

7

the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. §1981a.

8

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

9

in Serramonte, California, within thejurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern 10

11 District of California.

12

PARTIES

13

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is the agency of

14
the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of 15

16 Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42

17 U.S.c. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

18

4. At all relevant times, Defendants are and were corporations doing business in the

19 State of California, and have continuously had at least 15 employees.
20 5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an
21

22 industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of §701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

23 2000e(b), (g), and (h).

24

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

25

6.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Anne Wei filed a charge

26

27 of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants All conditions

28
2
COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION NO.

If

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 1 Filed 03/08/2005 Page 3 of 5

1

precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

2

7. Since at least December of2001, Defendants have engaged in unlawful practices at

3 their Serramonte location in violation of §703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 D.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1). These

4

5

practices, which continued on a regular basis, included subjecting the claimants to harassment on

6

the basis of their sex, female, which created an offensive, abusive, intimidating, and hostile work

7

environment. The harassment included both verbal and physical acts. For Ms. Wei, the harassment

8

became so intolerable that she was forced to resign in November 2002.

9 8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive
10

11 the claimants of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect them because of

12 their sex, female.

13

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were and

14 are intentional.

15

16

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done

17 with malice and/or reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of the claimants.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
20 A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employers, their officers,
21
22 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in

23 harassment based on sex and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

24

B. Order Defendant Employers to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

25 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for their employees and which eradicate
26
27 the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.

28
3
COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION NO.

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 1 Filed 03/08/2005 Page 4 of 5

1

C. Order Defendant Employers to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

2

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

3 above, with interest, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4 D. Order Defendant Employers to make whole the claimants by providing compensation
5

6

for past and future non-pecuniary losses caused by the above unlawful conduct, including pain and

7

suffering, emotional distress, indignity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, and

8

humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

9 E. Order Defendant Employers to pay the claimants punitive damages for its malicious
10

11 and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

12

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.

13 //1
14 //1
15 //1
16
17 1//

18 1//

19 //1

20 //1
21

22

1//

23 //1

24 //1

25

//1

26
//1 27

28 4
COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION NO.

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 1 Filed 03/08/2005 Page 5 of 5

1

G. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

2

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

3 The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

SJ1 13 Date:

,2005

14

15

Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel James L. Lee
Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

Equal Employment Commission
1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507

Opportunity

WILLIAM R. T Regional Attorney

16 17 Date: 18 19

I
3/7

,2005

"-
~D~A'V>ID F. 0 N-BROWN ~
Supervisory Trial Attorney

20 Date:

;/7

,2005

21

22

~~U[I~~

~~

ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES "

Trial Attorney

23

24

Equal Employment Commission

Opportunity

25

San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

26

San Francisco, California 94105-1260

27

Telephone: (415) 625-5658

28
5 COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION NO.

 
 United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 1 of 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
11 COMMISSION, et al.,

No. C 05-0962 SBA (JL)

12

Plaintiffs,

v.

13

LEXUS SERRAMONTE, ET AL.,

14

Defendants.

15 ________________________________/

ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS (Granting Docket # 24)

16 Introduction
17 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brings this lawsuit on
18 behalf of Annie Wei and other similarly situated female employees and former employees
19 alleging sexual harassment by Defendants. Wei claims sexual harassment by fellow
20 employees and supervisors and asks the court to compensate her for “emotional distress,
21 indignity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation.” She does not claim
22 ongoing emotional distress, nor does the EEOC intend to offer either expert testimony or
23 evidence from any of her medical records to support Wei’s claim. Defendants subpoenaed
24 records from all Wei’s subsequent employers as well as her health care providers dating
25 back to her childhood. Defendants contend they need the subpoenaed documents to inter
26 alia establish Wei’s veracity and whether she had a preexisting condition which caused her
27 distress. The EEOC asserts Wei’s privacy rights and contend that she has not waived them
28

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 1 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 2 of 7

1 by bringing a “garden variety” claim for emotional distress. The EEOC asks this Court to

2 quash Defendants’ subpoenas.

3

All discovery in this case was referred by the district court (Hon. Saundra Brown

4 Armstrong) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72.

5

After considering the written pleadings and oral arguments of counsel, this Court

6 hereby grants Plaintiff’s motion and quashes Defendants’ subpoenas.

7

EEOC moves to Quash Defendants’ Subpoenas

8

The EEOC moves the Court for an order quashing the subpoenas duces tecum

9 Defendants served on Wei’s employers after she quit Defendant Lexus including, San

10 Francisco Elk Lodge, The Gold Club, Penna Mechanical, and Biscuits and Blues; and her

11 health care providers including, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group South San Francisco,

12 Kaiser Billing c/o Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Mental Health Department c/o Kaiser P.M.G.

13 South San Francisco, and Kaiser Foundation Hospital c/o Pharmacy Analytical Services.

14 The EEOC also asks the Court to enter a protective order preventing Defendants from

15 viewing and using any information obtained pursuant to said subpoenas. Some documents

16 had already been produced before the EEOC notified the responding parties of its concerns

17 and filed its motion to quash.

18

Defendants subpoenaed the following documents from Wei’s subsequent

19 employers:

20

Any and all documents concerning Annie Wei … including, but not limited to, all

documents reflecting terms of employment, employment applications, resumes,

21

employment contracts, offer letters, document reflecting compensation and

earnings, description of job duties, discipline records, termination report, any

22

documents regarding internal complaints, claims or lawsuits filed against your

organization by this individual, absence records, incident reports, pre-employment

23

exam records to include typing tests and/or other administrative exams with the

results and answers, employee progress records, and documents reflecting benefits

24

including health care information and 401k retirement programs as well as any

documents included in the personnel file for Annie Wei.

25

Defendants also subpoenaed the following from Wei’s healthcare providers: All

26

documents and records, including, but not limited to, any and all treatment that Ms. Wei

27

has had with Kaiser Permanente spanning the entire time that she has been their patient.

28

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 2 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 3 of 7

1

Defendants subpoenaed from the healthcare billing departments: “Any and all

2 statements of billing charges” regarding any treatment that Ms. Wei had the entire time she

3 has been a Kaiser Permanente-South San Francisco patient. Ms. Wei has been a Kaiser

4 Permanente patient since childhood.

5

The EEOC contends that the Defendants’ subpoenas duces tecum seek information

6 that is lacking in specificity, not relevant to any claim or defense of any party, not

7 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, overly broad, unduly

8 burdensome, or invade the privacy rights of Annie Wei, a claimant on whose behalf the

9 Commission seeks relief in this action.

10

Counsel attempted to meet and confer

11

In efforts to informally resolve this matter without court assistance, on January 12

12 and 13, 2006, the EEOC sent correspondence to defense counsel and exchanged voice

13 mail messages with him regarding all the subpoenas duces tecum which are now at issue.

14 EEOC counsel had been out of the office on leave and by the time she returned, the time to

15 respond to the subpoenas had arrived and Defendants’ counsel had himself departed for a

16 vacation. After a few missed communications and the intervention of the Court, a hearing

17 was set.

18

ANALYSIS

19

Standing

20

The EEOC has standing as Plaintiff to move to quash. It is immaterial that it has no

21 standing to object as the non-recipient of the subpoenas, since it has standing as Plaintiff to

22 file a motion to quash on all the same grounds. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26©); Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii).

23

Employment Records

24

Employment records should not be produced for two reasons:

25

1. They are cumulative, duplicative and irrelevant, since the EEOC has produced

26 and continues to produce evidence of Wei's mitigation of damages by her employment

27 subsequent to her quitting Lexus. Plaintiff has provided Defendants with documents

28 showing wages earned by Ms. Wei subsequent to her leaving Lexus, and is in the process

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 3 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 4 of 7

1 of providing further wage information to supplement this document production. (Esparza-

2 Cervantes Decl at ¶ 9, Pltf P&A at 15:2-4)

3

Similarly, financial documents, such as payroll records, credit verification

4 documents, wage garnishments, health insurance premiums paid through sources other

5 than employers and other private records related to Ms. Wei’s finances are irrelevant to any

6 claims or defenses in this case.

7

2. Defendants seek information about any other harassment claims filed by Ms.

8 Wei after her employment at Lexus to try to establish a habit of filing such claims.

9 Similarly, Defendants seek evidence of Plaintiff’s work performance at employers for whom

10 she worked after she left Lexus. Work performance with other employers, either before or

11 after the defendant employer, is inadmissible under Rule 404(a) Federal Rules of Evidence

12 (evidence of a trait or character to prove conduct in conformity therewith on a particular

13 occasion is inadmissible). Rauh v Coyne, et al., 744 F. Supp. 1181, 1184 (D.D.C.1990).

14 Furthermore, the other jobs, as waitress and bookkeeper, were not comparable to Ms.

15 Wei’s job as a car salesperson for Lexus.

16
Medical Records 17

18

Medical records should not be produced because:

19

1. Ms. Wei has a right of privacy under both federal and California constitutions;

20 California Constitution, Article I, section 1; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484, 85 21
S.Ct. 1678, 1681, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (right to privacy is implied in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 22
23 and 9th Amendments). See also, Heda v. Superior Court, 225 Cal.App.3d 525, 527, 275
24 Cal.Rptr. 136, 137 (1st Dist. 1990). San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court, 87

25 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1092, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 476, 481 (4th Dist. 2001). See also Health

26 Information Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) 42 U.S.C. section 299b-2. 27

28

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 4 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 5 of 7

1

2. Ms. Wei has not waived her right of privacy by asserting more than a garden-

2 variety claim of emotional distress. Turner v Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 97 (S.D.Cal. 3
1995). Defendants attempt to distinguish the case at bar from Turner, in which the court 4
held that a plaintiff had not waived privilege and did not have to submit to a Rule 35 5
6 medical examination, because they are not asking Wei to submit to a medical examination

7 but are attempting to obtain access to her medical records. This Court finds that if anything,

8 delving into a plaintiff’s medical or psychiatric records is even more invasive than
9 conducting a medical or psychological examination, and that the standard for waiver should
10 be at least as rigorous as that in Turner. See Fitzgerald v Cassil, 216 F.R.D. 632, 636-638
11 12 (N.D. Cal. 2003), citing Fritsch v. City of Chula Vista, at 187 F.R.D. 614, 632 (S.D. Cal.

13 1999). In Fritsch, the defendant, as in this case, sought medical records unlimited as to

14 time: (“from her first visit to your offices to the present”) Id. at 616. Even though the plaintiff

15 in that case claimed “severe” emotional distress, the magistrate judge found that this alone
16 did not justify disclosure of any medical records.
17

18

“[T]he plaintiff has not brought a claim for either intentional or negligent

infliction of emotional distress; she does not allege that she suffered a

19

psychiatric injury or disorder as a result of the defendants’ conduct; she does

20

not claim to suffer from unusually severe emotional distress; and she does

not intend to offer expert testimony regarding her emotional distress. Rather,

21

she merely claims damages for emotional distress which she says she

suffered as a result of defendants’ actions as alleged in the complaint. The

22

mental suffering Plaintiff claims “does not exceed the suffering and loss an

23

ordinary person would likely experience in similar circumstances,” and constitutes “matters that are within the everyday experience of the average

24

juror.” Johnson [v. Trujillo], 977 P.2d 152 (Colo. 1999)], 977 P.2d 152, 157-

58.”

25 Fritsch, 187 F.R.D. at 632.

26

3. The test of whether Defendants should obtain access to Ms. Wei’s medical records

27 is not relevance -- the records may be highly relevant – but the test is whether the privilege 28

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 5 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 6 of 7
1 has been waived by putting the privileged information “at issue.” Fritsch, 187 F.R.D. at 6252 626, citing Vanderbilt v Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D.Mass. 1997)(finding waiver of 3
psychotherapist-patient privilege if communication between the two is put at issue by the 4
patient, for example, where the case of action relies on advice or findings of the 5 6 psychotherapist. Under this measure of fairness, waiver prevents the privilege from being
7 used as both a sword and a shield). Id. at 229-30.
8 The test also no longer involves balancing privacy against such factors as the
9 usefulness of the evidence or a defendant’s need for it. Fritsch, 187 F.R.D. at 625-626,
10 11 citing Jaffee v Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, (1996). Wei has not waived privacy by intent to offer
12 expert testimony or other evidence of ongoing emotional distress or by alleging specific
13 psychiatric diagnosis or injury. Turner, Id. 14
In the case at bar, the EEOC expressly states that “Ms. Wei no longer has 15 16 symptoms of her distress, and Plaintiff will not seek to introduce expert testimony to 17 support the claims of emotional distress.” (Plaintiff’s P&A at 9: 16-18). “Consistent with the
18 information already provided to Defendants, Plaintiff volunteers that Ms. Wei has suffered
19 ‘garden-variety’ emotional distress. She experienced distress and humiliation and felt 20
attacked, and devalued as a woman. She had nervousness, was depressed and 21
occasionally cried. She sought medical treatment on one occasion, while she was working 22 23 with Lexus. Yet the EEOC is not intending to use the treating physician’s testimony nor
24 present said information into evidence for the present suit.” (Plaintiff’s P&A at 11:4-9)
25 (Emphasis added). 26
Ms. Wei’s medical records are privileged by her right to privacy under California and 27 28 federal law, and she brings only a “garden-variety” claim for emotional distress damages

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 6 of 7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 28 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 7 of 7

1 and she does not intend to rely on those records or on testimony by a medical or

2 psychiatric expert to support her claim. Consequently, she has not waived this privilege by
3 putting her medical or mental condition at issue.
4

5

4. Defendants are not prejudiced because they will have an opportunity to depose

6 Ms. Wei to ascertain the extent and nature of her past emotional distress.

7 Conclusion and Order
8

9

For all the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas is

10 granted.

11 DATED: March 22, 2006
12

13

14

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON 15
Chief Magistrate Judge

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C-05-0962 ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENAS

Page 7 of 7

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 34 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 1 of 3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC

10 AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and FIRST AMERICA

AUTOMOTIVE, 11

Defendants.

12

/

No. C 05-0962 SBA ORDER [Docket No. 32]

13 On March 8, 2005, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint
14 in the above-captioned case. The case was assigned to Judge Fern Smith. After Judge Smith's
15 retirement, the case was reassigned to this Court.
16 On September 15, 2005, the parties submitted a Case Management Conference statement. In
17 the statement, both parties agreed that they would finish discovery by "June 31 [sic], 2006." On
18 September 22, 2005, the Court held the initial Case Management Conference. Based on the parties'
19 representation, the Court set a discovery cut-off deadline of June 30, 2006. The Court also
20 scheduled a trial to commence on October 2, 2006.
21 On April 19, 2006, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue discovery cut off deadline
22
from June 30, 2006 to July 31, 2006. In the stipulation, the parties explained that Plaintiff's attorney 23
had a personal emergency, and as a result, six depositions and a mediation session had to be 24
cancelled and rescheduled. The parties informed the Court that if they did not settle at the newly 25
scheduled mediation session on May 23, 2006, they would need to take at least ten additional 26
depositions and propound discovery that they were trying to avoid propounding to save resources. 27
On April 24, 2006, this Court approved the stipulation. 28

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 34 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 2 of 3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

On June 20, 2006, the parties filed the instant Joint Stipulation to Continue Discovery Cut

2 Off and Corresponding Pretrial and Trial Dates [Docket No. 32]. In the Stipulation, the parties

3 advise the Court that at the May 23 mediation session, they agreed to most terms in a consent decree

4 but were unable to reach a monetary settlement. The parties also advise the Court that they believe

5 further settlement efforts might help reach a settlement. The parties therefore request a continuance

6 the discovery cut off deadline to September 30;1 dispositive motion hearing deadline to October 17;

7 and the trial to January 22, 2007. They also request to stay all discovery, except for pending

8 discovery and corresponding motions, until July 3, 2006. The parties assert that such continuance is

9 necessary because they have failed to conduct necessary discovery "in the interest of saving

10 resources." Thus, if the parties' future settlement efforts prove unsuccessful, they would need to take

11 at least ten depositions and propound further discovery.

12

Having read and considered the parties' Stipulation, the Court finds that the parties have not

13 demonstrated good cause for continuance of all the dates. This Court relied on the parties'

14 representations, when it set the dates for the discovery cut off deadline and other deadlines. The

15 Court also relied on the parties' representations that they would be able to conduct the necessary

16 discovery and comply with other deadlines when it granted a continuance of the discovery cut off

17 pursuant to the parties' stipulation in April 2006. Instead of governing themselves in the manner

18 necessary to comply with the Court's orders, and despite the fact that their May 23, 2006 mediation

19 did not settle the case, the parties decided not to take the ten depositions they needed to take and not

20 to propound further discovery. Instead, the parties are "exploring" some unspecified settlement

21 options. The parties have not scheduled a second mediation session, and are not even sure if they

22 want to engage in a mediation. This conduct strongly suggests to the Court that the parties have 23 little regard for the Court's directives and deadlines. Nevertheless, in order to facilitate the 24 resolution of this case, the Court will grant the parties a brief extension of the discovery deadline so 25

26

1 While the parties request the discovery cut off deadline to be continued until September 30,

2006, at the same time, they state that it "would be impossible" for them to complete the necessary

27 discovery by September 30, 2006 "if current settlement efforts prove unsuccessful."

28

2

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 34 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 3 of 3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 that the necessary discovery can be completed, as well as a brief extension of the dispositive motions

2 hearing deadline. However, the Court hereby advises the parties that it does not appreciate, or

3 condone, the parties' disregard for the Court's deadlines and orders. The Court also reminds the

4 parties that it fully expects them to be in the position to commence trial on October 2, 2006. The

5 Court is not inclined to grant any further continuances.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' Joint Stipulation to Continue Discovery Cut

8 Off and Corresponding Pretrial and Trial Dates [Docket No. 32] is GRANTED IN PART and

9 DENIED IN PART.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the discovery cut-off deadline is extended to August 19,

11 2006. All depositions must be noticed such that the deposition is concluded on or before August

12 19, 2006. The time for responding to the requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for

13 production of documents shall be shortened from thirty to ten (10) days. The parties are responsible

14 for scheduling discovery such that any motions necessary to resolve the parties' discovery disputes

15 are heard on or before August 19, 2006.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the dispositive motions hearing deadline is extended to

17 September 19, 2006. The parties are hereby reminded that this Court is NOT inclined to grant any

18 further continuances.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties' request to continue the pretrial conference

20 and trial dates is DENIED. Except as expressly set forth herein, all deadlines set forth in the Pretrial

21 Order shall remain in effect.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties' request to stay all discovery until July 3,

23 2006, is DENIED as moot.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: 7/10/06
26

27

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

28

3

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 47 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 4

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 LEXUS SERRAMONTE, ET AL.,
15 Defendants.
16 ________________________________/

No. C 05-0962 SBA (JL)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EMPLOYEE LISTS (Granting Docket # 33, denying #s 36, 37)

17 Introduction
18 All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Saundra
19 Brown Armstrong) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. Plaintiff and
20 Defendants filed separate statements regarding a discovery dispute. This case is set for
21 hearing of dispositive motions by September 19, 2006 and has been referred for a
22 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Brazil. The parties attempted to meet and
23 confer but were unable to resolve their current dispute. The matter came on for hearing.
24 Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes appeared for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity
25 Commission (“EEOC”). David A. Hosilyk, FINE, BOGGS, COPE & PERKINS LLP,
26 appeared for Defendants Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc. And First America
27 Automotive (“Defendants”). The Court considered the moving and opposing papers and the
28

C-05-0962 DISCOVERY ORDER

Page 1 of 4

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 47 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 2 of 4

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1 arguments of counsel and hereby grants Plaintiff’s motion in part. Defendants shall

2 respond to Interrogatory No. 9 and Requests for Production of Documents No. 17 and 18.

3 However, the response is modified to records of female employees employed by

4 Defendants from January 2001 through December 2002. Furthermore, if Defendants do

5 not presently maintain their employee contact information in the electronic format

6 requested by Plaintiff, they shall produce it as maintained. If there is no protective order in

7 effect, the parties shall prepare one, modeled on the example on the Court’s web site and

8 present it to the Court for approval within five days of the e-filing of this order. Compliance

9 with the discovery portion of this order is due ten days from the e-filing of this order.

10

This Motion

11

Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to respond to the following:

12

(1) Interrogatory No. 9 “IDENTIFY each PERSON employed by YOU at YOUR

Lexus of Serramonte Facility during the REQUESTED TIME PERIOD providing the 13
following information for each: name, gender, hire date, last date employed if

14

currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social security number,

and employment position.”; (2) Request No. 17 “An electronic database file, in

15

Quattro Pro readable format, IDENTIFYING YOUR CURRENT employees in the

Serramonte Facility including each employees’ name, gender, hire date, last date

16

employed if currently laid off, residence addresses, telephone numbers, social

17

security number, and employment position.”; and (3) Request No. 18 “An electronic

database file, in Quattro Pro readable format, IDENTIFYING all female employees

18

that worked with or under the supervision of Roderick V. Helaire, Francis Chang,

Yan Epshtein and Bob Fraley from 2000 to the present, including each employee’s

19

name, hire date, last date employed if currently laid off, residence addresses,

20

telephone numbers, social security number, and employment position.”

21

Analysis

22

Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 sets forth a comprehensive scheme to enforce

23
the rights of workers to be free of discrimination in the workplace by employers who fall 24

25 within its ambit. It specifically grants the EEOC the power to enforce the anti-discrimination

26 laws by seeking injunctive remedies in the public interest as well as monetary remedies on

27 behalf of individual claimants. 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5. 28

C-05-0962 DISCOVERY ORDER

Page 2 of 4

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 47 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 3 of 4

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

In the case at bar, the EEOC has statutory authority to file lawsuits seeking class-

2 wide relief, and is exempt from the certification requirements of FRCP 23. General
3 Telephone Co. Of the Northwest, Inc. V. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980). (“The EEOC may
4
seek classwide relief under § 706(f)(1) without being certified as the class representative 5

6 under Rule 23; the EEOC may maintain its § 706 civil actions for the enforcement of Title

7 VII and may seek specific relief for a group of aggrieved individuals without first obtaining

8 class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.” Id. at 333-334.)
9 Consequently, the posture of this case is the same as if class certification had
10 already been granted and the parties are at the stage where Plaintiff’s counsel needs to
11
12 contact putative class members. A court may reasonably order a defendant to provide

13 contact information, including telephone numbers and addresses for its employees from

14 the relevant class period. That would be around the time when the named Plaintiff, Ms.

15 Wei, was employed at Lexus Serramonte, and not limited to the Sales Department.
16 However, the Court will refrain from unduly burdening Defendants. Romero v.
17
Producers Dairy Foods, Inc. 235 F.R.D. 474, 493 (E.D.Cal. 2006) 18

19

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order Defendant to submit a “computer-readable

data file containing” contact information of all potential class members. Mot. 19:10-

20

12. Defendant's Director of Administration states that Defendant “does not have a

computer readable data file containing employees' names, addresses, and

21

telephone numbers.” Sewill Decl. ¶ 8. It is unduly burdensome to require Defendant

22

to do Plaintiffs' work for them by creating a computer-readable file. Accordingly, the

Court will not order Defendant to produce one. Defendant must provide, however,

23

contact information for any potential class members that it has not yet provided.

24 Id.
25 If Defendants do not maintain the requested information in the format specified by
26 Plaintiff, then they shall produce in whatever form they do maintain it.
27 Order
28

C-05-0962 DISCOVERY ORDER

Page 3 of 4

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 47 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 4 of 4

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Defendants shall respond to Interrogatory No. 9 and Requests for Production of

2 Documents No. 17 and 18. However, the response is modified to records of female
3 employees employed by Defendants from January 2001 through December 2002.
4 Furthermore, if Defendants do not presently maintain their employee contact information in
5
6 the electronic format requested by Plaintiff, they shall produce it as maintained. If there is

7 no protective order in effect, the parties shall prepare one, modeled on the example on the

8 Court’s web site and present it to the Court for approval within five days of the e-filing of
9 this order. Compliance with the discovery portion of this order is due ten days from the e-
10 filing of this order.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 DATED: August
14

2006

15

16

___________/s_____________________

JAMES LARSON

17 Chief Magistrate Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\05-0962\ord-grant33,deny36,37.wpd

27

28

C-05-0962 DISCOVERY ORDER

Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC

10 AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and FIRST AMERICA

AUTOMOTIVE, 11

Defendants.

12

/

No. C 05-0962 SBA ORDER [Docket No. 48]

13 This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
14 BACKGROUND
15 Anne Wei began working for Lexus of Serramonte and Sonic Auto in December 2001 as a
16 Fleet and Internet Sales Person. Hosilyk Decl. Ex. B. She filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
17 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the California Department of Fair
18 Employment and Housing (DFEH) on December 27, 2002, stating that she was subjected to a hostile
19 work environment by General Sales Managers Rod Hellaire and Francis Chang and Sales Person
20 Yan Epstein. Id. She alleges that these individuals commented on her body, touched her
21 inappropriately, and made sexual comments on a daily basis. Wei states that she informed her
22
immediate supervisor, Bob Fraley, about this harassment, and he failed to take corrective action. 23
She was forced to end her employment on November 1, 2002. Id. 24
Lexus of Serramonte and Sonic Auto were notified of the Charge. Hosilyk Decl. Ex. C. 25
Conciliation efforts were made, and the EEOC notified Lexus of Serramonte and Sonic Auto that 26
conciliation efforts had failed and the case would be forwarded for litigation review on September 27
22, 2004. Id. at Ex. E. 28

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 2 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiff EEOC filed a Complaint on March 8, 2005, alleging that Defendants Lexus of

2 Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., and First America Automotive have engaged in unlawful

3 employment practices including verbal and physical harassment on the basis of sex, since at least

4 December 2001. Compl. at ¶ 7. More than 30 days prior to the institution of the suit, Wei filed a

5 charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Id. at ¶ 2. The EEOC brought the suit in order to provide

6 appropriate relief to Ms. Wei and "other similarly situated individuals." Plaintiff seeks a permanent

7 injunction barring Defendants from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the

8 basis of sex, and ordering Defendants to institute policies and programs to provide equal

9 opportunities for their employees. Id. at ¶¶ A, B. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory and punitive

10 damages. Id. at ¶¶ C, D, E.

11

Defendants answered the complaint, denying the allegations and setting forth sixteen

12 affirmative defenses.

13

Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment as to Defendants' Sixth, Tenth,

14 Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses, claiming that each lacks legal or factual

15 foundation. Defendants oppose the motion and also lodge objections to evidence submitted by

16 Plaintiff.

17

LEGAL STANDARD

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court may properly grant a motion for summary

19 judgment if the pleadings and materials demonstrate that there is "no genuine issue as to any

20 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v.

21 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is

22 such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty

23 Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment may be granted in favor of a defendant 24 on an ultimate issue of fact where the defendant carries its burden of “pointing out to the district 25 court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. 26 at 325; see Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 27

28

2

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 3 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must show that there are

2 genuine factual issues which can only be resolved by the trier of fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.

3 The nonmoving party may not rely on the pleadings but must present specific facts creating a

4 genuine issue of material fact. T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626,

5 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The court's function, however, is not to make credibility determinations.

6 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The inferences to be drawn from the facts must be viewed in a light

7 most favorable to the party opposing the motion. T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631.

8

ANALYSIS

9 a. Sixth Affirmative Defense

10

The Sixth Affirmative Defense states that "Plaintiffs had unclean hands with respect to the

11 matters alleged in the Complaint" and are thus barred from relief. Answer at 3.

12

The doctrine of unclean hands "closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with

13 inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief." Precision Instrument

14 Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). However, the

15 unclean hands doctrine is not strictly enforced when "to do so would frustrate a substantial public

16 interest." EEOC v. Recruit USA, Inc., 939 F.2d 746, 753 (9th Cir. 1991). The EEOC is charged

17 with administering, interpreting, and enforcing Federal anti-discrimination laws, and as such

18 effectuates a compelling public interest. Thus, in Recruit USA, the Ninth Circuit declined to apply

19 the unclean hands doctrine to the EEOC. In addition, the District Court for the District of Columbia

20 has held that when "the Government acts in the public interest the unclean hands defense is

21 unavailable as a matter of law." United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 61, 75 (D.D.C.

22 2004).

23

Defendants claim that under Recruit USA, the unclean hands defense may be applied to the

24 EEOC under certain circumstances. Opposition at 8. However, they state, they are not asserting an

25 unclean hands defense against the EEOC, but rather against Wei. Defendants point out that Wei did

26 not complain to upper management about the alleged sexual harassment, that she later went to work

27

28

3

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 4 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 for a strip club, and that she used foul language and told a coworker that she was not wearing any

2 underwear. Opposition at 9-10; Hosilyk Decl. at Ex. F-I. According to Defendants, "[c]learly the

3 aforementioned behavior of Wei could lead a court to conclude that neither Wei nor the EEOC is

4 entitled to equitable remedies because of the behavior." Id.

5

There are two problems with this argument. First, Defendants point to no authority allowing

6 the unclean hands defense to be asserted against the claimant in a public enforcement suit brought

7 by the EEOC. The unclean hands defense is asserted against a party, and Wei is not a party to this

8 case. The only Plaintiff is the EEOC. See General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446

9 U.S. 318, 324 (1980) ("Given the clear purpose of Title VII, the EEOC's jurisdiction over

10 enforcement, and the remedies available, the EEOC [has] authority to bring suit in its own name for

11 the purpose, among others, of securing relief for a group of aggrieved individuals.") (emphasis

12 added).

13

Second, even if it were proper to assert the defense against Wei, the facts identified by

14 Defendants do not add up to unclean hands. These facts might bear on Defendants' liability for sex

15 discrimination under Title VII, but they are not indicative of any bad faith by Wei that should

16 preclude her from seeking equitable relief. Defendants do not allege that Wei lied or committed any

17 fraudulent acts – instead, they allege that she should not be allowed to recover for sexual harassment

18 because, essentially, she brought it on herself and did not do enough to stop it. This is insufficient.

19 See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2006 WL 565893 at *25 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2006)

20 ("The unclean hands defense applies 'only if the court is left with a firm conviction that the

21 defendant acted with a fraudulent intent in making the challenged claims.'") (quoting Jarrow

22 Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 842 (9th Cir. 2002)). See also Republic

23 Molding Corp. v. B.W. Photo Utilities, 319 F.2d 347, 349 (9th Cir. 1963) (holding that "misconduct 24 in the abstract . . . does not constitute unclean hands"). Defendants bear the burden of proving 25 unclean hands, and they must show that "the offending conduct materially prejudiced [their] ability 26 to defend [themselves]." Hynix at *27. They have not carried this burden. 27

28

4

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 5 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Finally, Defendants' assertion that the unclean hands defense might apply to as-yet-

2 unidentified class members is pure speculation. See Opposition at 10. Thus, the Court grants

3 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Sixth Affirmative Defense.

4 b. Tenth Affirmative Defense

5

The Tenth Affirmative Defense states that "Plaintiff's claims are barred due to their failure to

6 timely exhaust administrative remedies." Defendants do not specify any particular administrative

7 remedies that Plaintiff failed to exhaust. Answer at 4.

8

Plaintiff argues that the only prerequisite to bringing a public enforcement lawsuit such as

9 this is that the underlying charge be filed more than 30 days prior to the institution of the suit. 42

10 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). Defendants admit that Wei filed her charge of discrimination more

11 than 30 days before this suit was brought. Aside from that, Plaintiff argues, there are no

12 "administrative remedies" to exhaust.

13

However, EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1982), identifies steps

14 which the EEOC must take before instituting a suit. These steps, which may be characterized as

15 administrative remedies that must be exhausted, are as follows. First, a charge of discrimination

16 must be filed. The EEOC must then inform the alleged wrongdoer of the charge, conduct an

17 investigation, and determine whether "reasonable cause exists to believe that the charge is true." If

18 reasonable cause is found, the agency must engage in conciliation efforts and, if those prove

19 unproductive, the agency must give the respondent written notice of its "last chance" to conciliate.

20 At that point, the EEOC is empowered to bring suit. Id.

21

There is no dispute that the proper steps were taken leading up to the filing of this suit. Thus,

22 the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Tenth Affirmative Defense.

23 c. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense

24

The Thirteenth Affirmative Defense states that: "The Court lacks jurisdiction over any claims

25 under Title VII against Defendants as to any Plaintiff who failed to file any timely charge or

26 allegations against Defendants, or any of them, with the EEOC." Answer at 4.

27

28

5

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 6 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

There is no allegation that the EEOC failed to timely file any charges or allegations. Indeed,

2 the EEOC was not required to file any charge – the complete list of actions that the EEOC was

3 required to take before instituting this suit is discussed in the preceding section. Instead, Defendants

4 argue that the EEOC may not seek relief on behalf of claimants who could not have filed charges of

5 discrimination within 300 days of the alleged conduct giving rise to the charge in this case.

6 Opposition at 2. Here, again, Defendants confuse the concept of Plaintiff (only the EEOC) and

7 claimant (Wei and perhaps others).

8

Plaintiff does not contest that Defendants may oppose recovery sought on behalf of claimants

9 who are unable to establish that they could have filed a timely charge. Both parties rely on EEOC v.

10 Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836, 839-40 (6th Cir. 1994) for that proposition. In Wilson, the

11 court held that where one claimant filed a timely EEOC charge, then individuals with claims "arising

12 out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame" need not have filed a charge in order

13 to recover.1

14

However, Defendants do not identify any claimants or potential claimants on whose behalf

15 the EEOC will seek recovery who could not have filed a timely charge of discrimination.

16 Essentially, Defendants ask this Court to give an advisory opinion that the EEOC may only seek

17 remedies on behalf of claimants who could have filed charges in the same time frame as Wei. See

18 Opposition at 3. If the EEOC identifies a claimant who Defendants believe could not have filed a

19 timely charge of discrimination, the Court will consider Defendants' objection at that time. At this

20 juncture, though, the Court will not rule on this issue.

21

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Thirteenth Affirmative Defense is

22 granted. 23 d. Fourteenth Affirmative Defense 24

25 1This idea, known as the "single filing rule," has been adopted by at least six Circuits, see
26 Wilson, 24 F.3d at 840 n.1, but has not yet been addressed by the Ninth Circuit. Further, Wilson does not squarely hold that claimants who could not have filed a charge within the same time frame as the
27 claimant who did file a charge may not recover.

28

6

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 7 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The Fourteenth Affirmative Defense states that: "All claims under Title VII which were not

2 the subject of a timely charge filed with the EEOC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); with respect

3 to which no investigation or conciliation effort has been made by the EEOC; or, which were not

4 made the subject of a timely civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), are barred." Answer

5 at 5.

6

Although this Defense appears to be a generic objection to procedurally improper claims by

7 Plaintiff, both parties focus their argument on whether FAA is a proper Defendant in this case. This

8 issue is not explicitly mentioned in this or any of the Affirmative Defenses, and the appropriate way

9 to resolve it is through a Motion to Dismiss by FAA. Such a motion has not been filed, and as such,

10 the Court will not consider the parties' arguments at this time.

11

The Defense raises whether the suit is based on claims which were the subject of a timely

12 charge, which is addressed in the previous section; whether the EEOC has investigated and

13 attempted conciliation, which they have; and whether this lawsuit is timely. The EEOC correctly

14 points out that there is no limitations period within which it must bring suit. Occidental Life Ins. Co.

15 v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 366-68 (1977). Thus, there are no genuine issues of material fact with

16 respect to the Fourteenth Affirmative Defense, and the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

17 e. Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence

18

Defendants object to the Declaration of Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, submitted in support of

19 the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, on the ground that it violates Northern District of

20 California Civil Local Rule 7-5(b). Rule 7-5(b) states that "[a]n affidavit or declarations may

21 contain only facts, must conform as much as possible to the requirements of FRCivP 56(e), and must

22 avoid conclusions and argument. Any statement made upon information or belief must specify the

23 basis therefor." Specifically, Defendants raise the following objections:

24

1. Paragraph 2 is irrelevant and violates Rule 7-5(b). Paragraph 2 states that "Defendant

25 failed to articulate any facts which support their Sixth Affirmative Defense of "unclean hands" in

26 this case." This is argument which should not be included in a Declaration, and thus the objection is

27

28

7

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 8 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 sustained.

2

2. Paragraph 3 is irrelevant and lacks a foundation of personal knowledge. Paragraph 3

3 states that Defendants failed to appear at two mutually scheduled conciliation conferences and

4 rejected EEOC's proposed settlements. This is not relevant to any of the Affirmative Defenses at

5 issue, thus the Court sustains the objection.

6

3. Paragraph 5 is irrelevant, lacks foundation, and constitutes an impermissible attempt to

7 authenticate documents. Paragraph 5 states that the three Defendants share identical corporate

8 officers, and states that true and correct copies of the companies' most recently-filed Statements of

9 Information are attached. This information concerns whether FAA is a proper Defendant, but it is

10 not relevant to any of the Affirmative Defenses at issue in this Motion. Thus, the objection is

11 sustained.

12

4. Paragraph 6 contains argument and conclusions in violation of Rule 7-5(b), and lacks a

13 proper foundation of personal knowledge. Paragraph 6 states that all three Defendants share the

14 same employee benefit programs and handbooks, and provides documents from Wei's personnel file

15 so indicating. This is properly characterized as a statement of fact for purposes of Rule 7-5(b), but

16 again, it is not relevant to any of the Affirmative Defenses at issue in this Motion. Thus, the

17 objection is sustained.

18

5. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 present a summary of deposition testimony without attaching

19 transcripts from the relevant depositions, in violation of Rule 7-5(a). This objection is overruled

20 because Plaintiff has since supplied the necessary transcripts. See Supplemental Esparza-Cervantes

21 Decl. at Ex. 5 (Bliss deposition), Ex.6 (Dessy deposition), and Ex. 10 (Hibberd deposition).

22

6. Paragraph 10 is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 states that all three Defendants are jointly

23 represented by the same law firm, which also represented the companies during the EEOC

24 investigation. This objection is sustained.

25

7. Paragraph 11 contains opinion and legal conclusion. Paragraph 11 states that FAA is

26 Wei's direct employer, as evidenced by her W-2 form. Again, because the Court will not consider

27

28

8

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 92 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 9 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 whether FAA was properly joined as a Defendant, this information is irrelevant and the objection is

2 sustained.

3

8. Paragraph 12 is duplicative, irrelevant, and lacks foundation. Paragraph 12 repeats

4 Paragraph 3 verbatim. Thus, this objection is sustained.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is

6 GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9

10 Dated: 9/11/06

11

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

12

United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 122 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

12

Plaintiff,

No. C 05-0962 SBA (WDB) ORDER FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT

13

v.

14 LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, et al.,

15

Defendant

16 _____________________________/

17 On Thursday, September 14, 2006, the undersigned held a settlement conference in this

18 action. The case did not settle during the conference. The parties continued their negotiations

19 the following day, however, and the case settled on Friday, September 15, 2006. Accordingly,

20 by no later than Tuesday, September 19, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff must send a letter to the

21 District Court, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong, with a copy to the undersigned, stating

22 that the case settled and notifying the Court of a date certain by which the parties will file a

23 stipulation of dismissal.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: September 15, 2006
26
27 cc: parties, SBA, WDB, stats

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil WAYNE D. BRAZIL United States Magistrate Judge

28

1

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 123 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 1

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

5

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff, )

6

)

vs.

)

7

)

LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE ET AL, )

8

)

Defendant. )

9

)

No. C05-00962 SBA ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

10

11 The Court having been notified of the settlement of
12 this action, and it appearing that no issue remains for the
13 Court's determination,
14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action and all claims
15 asserted herein are DISMISSED with prejudice. In the event
16 that the settlement is not reached, any party may move to
17 reopen the case and the trial will be rescheduled, provided
18 that such motion is filed within 30 days of this order. All
19 scheduled dates, including the trial and pretrial dates, are
20 VACATED.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 DATED:9/19/06
23

24

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 19

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, SBN 084965 1 DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN, SBN 063321
ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES, SBN 205412 2 LINDA S. ORDONIO-DIXON, SBN 172830
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3 San Francisco District Office
350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 4 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260
Telephone No. (415) 625-5658 5 Fax No. (415) 625-5657

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 10 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

11

Plaintiff, v.

12 LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC

13

AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AND FIRST AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE,

14

Defendants.

15

CONSENT DECREE

16 I. INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Defendants Lexus

18 of Serramonte (“Lexus”), First America Automotive, Inc., and Sonic Automotive, Inc. (all three

19 collectively “Defendants”), hereby stipulate and agree to entry of this Consent Decree to resolve the

20 EEOC’s Complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Section 706

21 (f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1)

22 and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (“Title VII”).

23 II. JURISDICTION

24

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit, pursuant to

25 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, 1345, 1367, and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f). The

26 Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of the Decree for the purposes of

27 entering all orders, judgments and decrees which may be necessary to implement and/or enforce the

28 relief provided herein or to otherwise effectuate the purposes of the Decree. The EEOC and

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 19

1 Defendants consent to the assignment of Magistrate Judge Larson to resolve any disputes that may

2 arise between the parties regarding this Decree.

3 III. PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE

4

A. The parties to this Consent Decree (“Decree”) are the EEOC, and Defendants

5 (collectively the “Parties”). This Decree shall be binding on and enforceable against all named

6 defendants and their officers, directors, agents, successors and assigns. All Defendants are bound by

7 the injunctive relief outlined in Sections VIII (A), (B) and (H) only as to any current or former Lexus

8 employee, and as to any claimant or witness that participated in this suit or the EEOC investigation

9 underlying this suit. It is further understood, agreed and ordered that the injunctive relief listed in

10 Sections VIII (C)-(G) shall be carried out at the Colma, California dealership operating as Lexus of

11 Serramonte and no other location, or facility. All three Defendants are parties to the terms of this

12 Decree, but the requirements can be satisfied by one Defendant, or any of them.

13

B. As a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have

14 agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree for the following purposes:

15

1. To avoid expensive and protracted costs incident to litigation;

16

2. To provide a final and binding settlement upon the Parties as to all claims alleged

17 in the Complaint;

18

3. To provide monetary and injunctive relief;

19

4. To ensure that Lexus’ employment policies and procedures comply with Title

20 VII;

21

5. To ensure training for Lexus’ employees with respect to their obligations under

22 Title VII;

23

6. To prevent and correct discrimination in the workplace;

24

7. To provide effective responses to discrimination complaints; and

25

8. To prevent retaliation against employees who engage in protected activities under

26 Title VII.

27 IV. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECREE

28

A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are effective immediately upon the date

2.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 19

1 on which this Decree is entered by the Court (“the Effective Date”).

2

B. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Decree shall remain in effect for 2 years after

3 the Effective Date.

4 V. FINDINGS

5

Having examined the terms and provisions of this Decree and based on the pleadings, record

6 and stipulation of the Parties, the Court finds the following:

7

A. The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this action. The

8 Complaint asserts claims that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant the relief set forth in this

9 Decree.

10

B. The terms and provisions of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just.

11 The rights of the Parties and the public interest for which the EEOC seeks redress are protected

12 adequately by this Decree.

13

C. This Decree conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in

14 derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the

15 objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interest of the Parties.

16 VI. RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS

17

A. The Parties agree that this Decree constitutes a complete resolution of EEOC Charge No.

18 370A300314 and the complaint filed in this action. The Decree also constitutes a complete

19 resolution of any and all claims under Title VII that were made or could have been made by the

20 EEOC in this action. It is agreed and ordered that the settlement herein settles any and all claims that

21 could have been included by EEOC in this suit spanning March 2, 2002 to the present.

22

B. This Decree in no way affects the EEOC’s right to bring, process, investigate or litigate

23 other charges that may be in existence or may later arise against Defendants in accordance with

24 standard EEOC procedure.

25

C. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Defendants’ obligation to

26 comply fully with Title VII or any other federal employment statute.

27

D. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC or Defendants from

28 enforcing this Decree pursuant to its terms in the event any party has failed to perform the promises

3.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 4 of 19

1 and representations contained herein.

2 VII. MONETARY RELIEF

3

A. For Identified Class Members

4

Within thirty (30) business days after the Effective Date, or as soon as possible thereafter, the

5 EEOC shall give Defendants written notice of the specific monetary distribution that is to be

6 provided to charging party Annie Wei and class member Salma Downing, and their respective

7 addresses where the check should be delivered. The monetary distribution paid to charging party

8 Annie Wei and claimant Salma Downing collectively shall not exceed Three Hundred Seventy-Five

9 Thousand Dollars $375,000.00. Within three (3) business days of the issuance of each check,

10 Defendants shall submit a copy of each check and related correspondence to Elizabeth Esparza-

11 Cervantes, Trial Attorney, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 350 The

12 Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105. In any event, Defendants shall pay the amount

13 determined by the EEOC constituting damages via overnight mail within ten (10) days of receiving

14 the EEOC’s written notice of the specific monetary distribution that is to be provided to charging

15 party Annie Wei and class member Salma Downing.

16

Lexus shall prepare and distribute any corresponding 1099 tax reporting forms to the

17 Charging Party (Ms. Wei) and Ms. Downing (or to any other payee) and shall make appropriate

18 reports to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. Defendants shall be solely

19 responsible for any costs associated with the issuance and distribution of the 1099 tax reporting

20 forms to Ms. Wei and Ms. Downing. Ms. Wei and Ms. Downing shall be solely responsible for

21 taxes payable, if any, on their respective portion of settlement proceeds reported in the 1099 tax

22 reporting forms, and Defendants shall not deduct for taxes out of the settlement funds. As a

23 condition of the payment to Ms. Downing and, Ms. Wei, Ms. Wei must sign a general release, and

24 Ms. Downing must sign the release of her federal employment discrimination claims attached

25 herewith as Exhibit A.

26

B. For Unidentified Class Members

27

In addition to the amount to be paid to the Identified Claimants, above, Defendants agree to

28 pay the difference in the amount paid to Ms. Wei and Ms. Downing and the sum of Three Hundred

4.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 5 of 19

1 Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars $375,000.00 in damages (“Settlement Fund”) to be distributed to

2 class members at the EEOC’s discretion. For example, if Ms. Wei and Ms. Downing were paid

3 $75,000.00, the Settlement Fund would be $300,000.00.

4

1. Settlement Fund Account

5

Within thirty (30) days after the deadline for filing claims by Eligible Claimants (“Claim

6 Deadline”), Lexus shall establish and maintain a segregated account for the Settlement Fund in

7 accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Only withdrawals authorized by this

8 Decree shall be made from the account.

9

The Settlement Fund shall be used to make payments to Eligible Claimants whom the

10 Commission determines to be eligible to receive monetary relief in this action (such persons are

11 hereinafter referred to as “Eligible Claimants”).

12

2. Procedures to Identify Eligible Claimants

13

The EEOC shall contact and interview employees to determine if they are Eligible Claimants

14 from the list of employees provided by Lexus to EEOC as ordered by Magistrate Larson, and as

15 agreed between the parties for females employed at Lexus of Serramonte from January 1, 2003 to

16 the present. Within five (5) days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall produce to the EEOC

17 Lexus of Serramonte’s female employee contact information spanning January 1, 2003 to the

18 present. The female employee contact information spanning January 1, 2003 to the present shall

19 provide the following contact information for each employee: name; last known address(es); last

20 known telephone number(s); social security number, date of birth, hire date, termination date, and

21 position held while employed at Lexus.

22

3. The Commission’s Determination of Eligibility and Computation of Claims

23

Eligible Claimants shall include only those Eligible Claimants who satisfy each and all of the

24 following criteria:

25

a) The Commission received credible evidence that the Claimant was

26 subjected to sexual harassment as defined by Title VII and could have filed a timely claim of

27 harassment with the EEOC on or about December 27, 2002; and

28

b) The Claimant has not previously signed a release which would cover the

5.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 6 of 19

1 actions complained of by the Claimant.

2

Acting in its discretion and subject only to final approval by the Court, if the Court requires

3 it, the Commission shall exclusively determine the eligibility of Claimants for relief under this

4 Decree. In determining eligibility, the Commission shall consider the following factors: (a) severity

5 of the harassment, (b) duration of the harassment, and (c) extent of harm suffered as a result, (e.g.

6 whether the Claimant was subjected to unwelcome physical touching of a sexual nature or to

7 unwelcome sexually charged comments).

8

Acting in its discretion and subject only to final approval by the Court regarding objections

9 as provided below, the Commission shall determine the portion of the Settlement Fund that will be

10 allocated to each of the Eligible Claimants. The amounts allocated to each Eligible Claimant shall

11 reflect the factors enumerated above. This Decree contemplates that there will be differences in

12 awards to Eligible Claimants.

13

Within 120 days after the Effective Date of this decree, the Commission shall make its final

14 determination as to the eligibility of each Eligible Claimant (“Final Determination Date”).

15 Defendants shall have 30 days after the Preliminary Determination Date to investigate the

16 circumstances and file objections with the EEOC to the final determination as to particular

17 Claimants. Defendants may only raise the following limited objections to the EEOC’s preliminary

18 determination as to the eligibility and damages of each Claimant:

19

a) Lexus may disagree as to the timeliness of the claim.

20

b) Lexus may disagree on awarding money to a claimant who has previously

21 signed a comprehensive settlement precluding further recover for the same claims.

22

If a timely objection is made by Defendants, and the EEOC disagrees with the objection,

23 Defendants may present their objection, by way of motion, to the Federal District Court who shall

24 have authority to determine the right to such an award, per the criteria set herein.

25

4. Notification of Eligibility

26

Within thirty (30) days after the Commission’s Final Determination Date, or if any objection

27 is filed as to particular Claimants within thirty (30) days after the resolution of the objection by the

28 Court, as described above, the Commission shall mail to each person whom it has determined is

6.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 7 of 19

1 entitled to monetary relief, a letter containing the following information: (1) whether he or she has

2 been designated as eligible to be awarded relief; and (2) the preliminary determination as to the gross

3 (pre-tax) amount of monetary relief to which such person will be entitled. The letter will also inform

4 each Eligible Claimant that any monetary payments received from the Settlement Fund may be

5 subject to mandatory federal, state and local income tax withholding.

6

5. Executed Release by Claimant

7

Each Eligible Claimant who receives notice that she is entitled to monetary relief, will accept

8 such relief by executing the Claimant Release attached hereto as Exhibit A.

9

6. Calculation and Distribution of Final Settlement Amounts

10

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of each Claimant Release Form, Defendants shall

11 deliver payment to each Eligible Claimant. Payment shall be mailed directly to each Eligible

12 Claimant to an address supplied by the Commission. Within three business days of the issuance,

13 Defendants shall submit a copy of each check and related correspondence to the Regional Attorney,

14 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San

15 Francisco, CA 94105. In addition, Defendants shall prepare and distribute 1099 tax reporting forms

16 to each Eligible Claimant and shall make appropriate reports to the Internal Revenue Service and

17 other tax authorities. Claimants are responsible for the payment of their own taxes on the settlement

18 funds and Defendants shall not deduct for taxes out of the settlement funds. Defendants shall notify

19 the Commission in writing of any checks that are returned. The Commission may take further steps

20 to track those Eligible Claimants who did not receive their settlement checks provided that the award

21 to any Eligible Claimant who cannot be found will expire six months after the initial attempt at

22 distribution and any amount not paid to such Claimant shall be distributed to organizations

23 addressing women’s rights and employee rights as set forth below.

24

8. Allocation to Charitable, Non-Profit or Not-For-Profit Organization

25

If the Settlement Fund is not completely depleted after the procedures outlined in the above

26 paragraphs, the remainder of the Settlement Fund will be given to an organization addressing

27 women’s rights and/or employee’s rights chosen by the Commission, subject to Defendants’

28 approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al
Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 8 of 19

1

9. Costs Associated with Distribution of the Settlement Fund

2

C. All costs associated with the distribution of the Settlement Fund to Eligible Claimants

3 shall be paid by Lexus, including without limitation, all costs associated with the creation and

4 maintenance of the Settlement Fund, and all costs related to the issuance and mailing of checks from

5 the Settlement Fund, except as set forth herein. Under no circumstances are Lexus to use the

6 principal from the Settlement Fund to pay any costs associated with the distribution of the

7 Settlement Fund or any other costs associated with their obligations under this Decree.

8 VIII. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9

A. Non-Discrimination

10

Defendants, their officers, agents, management (including all supervisory employees),

11 successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with any of them, hereby agree

12 (1) not to engage in sexual harassment or other form of sex discrimination; (2) to prevent and correct

13 any harassment or other discrimination on the basis of sex; and (3) to ensure that employees who

14 complain about or resist discrimination on the basis of sex are not subjected to any tangible

15 employment actions.

16

B. Anti-Retaliation

17

Defendants, their officers, agents, management (including all supervisory employees),

18 successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, or any of them, hereby

19 agree not to retaliate against any current or former employees for: (a) opposing any practice made

20 unlawful under Title VII; (b) engaging in protected activity under Title VII; (c) filing a charge of

21 discrimination; (d) participating in any manner in any investigation (including any internal

22 investigation undertaken by defendants) or proceeding relating to any alleged Title VII violation; (f)

23 asserting any rights under this Decree; or (g) receiving any relief under this Decree.

24

C. Posting

25

Within ten business days after the Effective Date and throughout the term of this Decree,

26 Defendants shall post a full-sized copy of the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit B, in at least two

27 clearly visible locations frequented by Lexus employees, including the conference room frequented

28 by sales employees at Lexus of Serramonte. Said notice shall also be distributed individually to each

8.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 9 of 19

1 employee, at Lexus of Serramonte, immediately after entry of the Consent Decree.

2

D. Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant

3

Within thirty business days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall notify the EEOC of

4 their proposed choice for an Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant (“Consultant”) who shall

5 possess demonstrated experience in implementing sex harassment policies and procedures,

6 conducting investigations, and monitoring compliance with Title VII and the provisions of this

7 Decree. The Consultant chosen shall be subject to the EEOC’s approval, which shall not be

8 unreasonably withheld. If the EEOC does not approve Defendants’ proposed Consultant, the EEOC

9 shall provide Defendant with a list of at least three suggested candidate acceptable to the EEOC from

10 which defendants must choose and retain one within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the list.

11 Defendants shall bear all costs associated with the selection and retention of the Consultant and the

12 performance of his/her duties during the term of the Decree.

13

The Consultant’s responsibilities shall include:

14

1. Determine whether Lexus’ policies and procedures are drafted to ensure effective

15 investigations of discrimination and retaliation complaints;

16

2. Suggest modifications to Lexus’ training materials, training methods and methods

17 of handling workplace discrimination, if necessary to comply with Title VII;

18

3. Conduct training for all employees on Lexus’ policies and procedures against

19 discrimination and retaliation, and conduct training for supervisors on recognizing discrimination

20 and retaliation and responding to such complaints as required by law.

21

4. Verify that Lexus has a system of making and processing complaints of

22 discrimination or harassment that provides feasible and practical avenues of complaint that are made

23 known to all employees. This system may include multiple avenues of filing complaints, including a

24 third party employee hotline system;

25

5. Review Lexus’ response to any complaints or inquiries regarding sexual

26 harassment, and make suggestions on proper handling;

27

6. Monitoring to prevent retaliation against employees who complain or inquire

28 about discrimination or retaliation; 9.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al
Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 10 of 19

1

7. Verify Lexus’ discipline policies hold managers and employees accountable for

2 failing to take appropriate action and/or for engaging in other conduct prohibited under this Decree

3 and Title VII; and

4

8. Ensure that all reports required by this Decree are accurately compiled and timely

5 submitted; and

6

E. Revision of Policies Concerning Discrimination and Retaliation

7

With the assistance of the Consultant, Lexus shall review, and if necessary revise its policy

8 on discrimination and retaliation. A copy of the policy shall be submitted to the EEOC and

9 distributed to all of Lexus’ employees within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date. The revised

10 policy shall include:

11

1. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of discrimination.

12

2. A clear and comprehensive description, including concrete examples, of

13 prohibited sexual harassment and retaliation.

14

3. A description of the possible consequences that will be imposed upon violation of

15 the policy against discrimination and retaliation;

16

4. A statement encouraging employees to come forward if they believe that they

17 have been discriminated against or retaliated against for complaining about discrimination;

18

5. An assurance that persons who in good faith complain about discrimination or

19 retaliation they experienced or witnessed will not be subject to retaliation;

20

6. A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible avenues of

21 complaint;

22

7. Assurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of discrimination

23 complaints to the extent possible on a need-to-know basis.

24

8. A complaint process that provides prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations;

25

9. A system for tracking and providing follow-up on complaints and/or inquiries

26 regarding sexual harassment and/or retaliation such as the employee hotline;

27

10. Assurance that Lexus will take immediate and appropriate correction action if

28 they determine that discrimination or retaliation has occurred. 10.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al
Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 11 of 19

1

11. A statement that Lexus’ policy against discrimination and retaliation applies to

2 all of Lexus’ management officials, supervisors, vendors, suppliers, third parties, and customers;

3

12. The contact information of persons both internal (e.g. human resources personnel

4 or managers) and external to Defendants to whom employees may report discrimination and

5 retaliation;

6

13. A clear and comprehensive description of the specific responsibilities of Lexus’

7 supervisory employees when they witness discrimination and/or retaliation and/or receive a

8 complaint and/or inquiry regarding discrimination and/or retaliation; and

9

14. A clear and comprehensive description of the specific responsibilities of Lexus’

10 supervisory employees who fail to perform their responsibilities when they witness discrimination

11 and/or retaliation and/or receive a complaint and/or inquiry regarding discrimination and/or

12 retaliation

13

F. Training

14

1. Within sixty days after hiring the Consultant, Lexus shall submit their training

15 materials on sexual harassment and retaliation to the EEOC.

16

2. Within sixty days after approval by the EEOC of the training materials submitted,

17 all of Lexus’ managerial and staff/hourly employees shall be required to attend training on their

18 obligations and responsibilities under Lexus’ policies and procedures provided by the Consultant.

19

3. All employees’ training shall include coverage of equal employment opportunity

20 rights and responsibilities, harassment, retaliation, and Lexus’ revised policies and procedures for

21 reporting and handling complaints of harassment and retaliation. The training shall last at least one

22 hour.

23

4. The training of supervisory employees shall additionally include training on how

24 to recognize, prevent and correct sexual harassment, how to take preventative and corrective

25 measures against sexual harassment, and how to receive and investigate or report to designated

26 officials complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation.

27

5. For the remainder of the term of this Decree, all new employees and all

28 employees recently promoted from a staff/hourly to managerial position shall receive the managerial

11.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 12 of 19

1 or staff/hourly employee training, as appropriate, within thirty days of hire or promotion. This

2 training may be done in person or electronically and does not have to be performed by the

3 Consultant, provided the training is approved by the EEOC.

4

6. After the initial training as specified above, all employees shall receive the

5 training at least annually thereafter for the remainder of the term of this Decree.

6

G. Complaint Procedure

7

Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall ensure that their internal

8 Complaint procedure provides for the filing, investigation and, if appropriate, remedying of

9 complaints of discrimination or retaliation. Defendants shall establish a toll-free number or internet-

10 based reporting system that shall be disseminated to all Lexus of Serramonte employees informing

11 them that a complaint can be lodged at any time. The toll-free number or internet-based reporting

12 system shall be administered by a third-party provider. All calls or reports shall be tracked by the

13 third-party during the term of the Decree. The provider must be approved by the EEOC and may be

14 changed from time to time with EEOC approval.

15

Defendants shall (1) publicize the complaint procedure; (2) track and collect all complaints

16 filed thereunder; (3) investigate and resolve such complaints in a timely and effective manner; and

17 (4) retain records regarding resolution of all such complaints.

18

The Consultants shall track and collect all complaints filed thereunder and retain all records

19 regarding resolution of all such complaints. The Consultants shall also ensure that Defendants

20 publicize the complaint procedure and shall review Defendants’ investigation and resolution of such

21 complaints.

22

The internal complaint procedure shall incorporate the following elements:

23

1. A description of how investigations will be conducted;

24

2. A prompt commencement and thorough investigation by persons trained to

25 conduct such investigations;

26

3. A statement that an investigation should include interviews of all relevant

27 witnesses, including the complainant, and reviews of all relevant documents;

28

4. A written record of all investigatory steps, and any findings and conclusions, and

12.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 13 of 19

1 any actions taken;

2

5. Provision for the reasonably prompt resolution of such complaints;

3

6. An opportunity for the complainant to review and respond to tentative findings,

4 except in those circumstances in which it is necessary to take immediate action;

5

7. Confidentiality of the complaint and investigation to the extent possible;

6

8. Communication of the final conclusions of the investigation to the complainant;

7

9. An appeal procedure to an appropriate representative for defendants, should the

8 complainant be dissatisfied with the results of the investigation;

9

10. A statement that it is unacceptable to retaliate against anyone for using the

10 complaint procedure, for assisting in the investigation of a complaint, or for otherwise assisting in

11 the utilization of the procedure.

12

H. Neutral References

13

Defendants shall hereafter give a neutral reference for Ms. Wei, Ms. Downing and each

14 similarly situated employee identified by the EEOC upon inquiry by any prospective employers,

15 which includes the following information: date of hire, position held, and date of departure. Ms.

16 Wei, Ms. Downing and each similarly situated employee identified by the EEOC shall list the

17 following as their reference for employment at Lexus: Vicki Sylvia, Director of Associate

18 Development, 7000 Las Vegas Blvd. North, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89115; and telephone

19 (702) 632-3315

20 IX. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING

21

A. Record Keeping

22

The Consultant shall establish a record keeping procedure that provides for the centralized

23 tracking of complaints of sexual harassment and the monitoring of such complaints to prevent

24 retaliation. The records to be maintained during the period of this Consent Decree shall include:

25

1. All documents generated in connection with any complaint, investigation into, or

26 resolution of every complaint of sexual harassment or retaliation for the duration of the Decree and

27 the identities of the parties involved, including, but not limited to, the complainant, alleged

28 perpetrator, investigator(s), witness(es) and decision-maker(s); 13.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al
Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 14 of 19

1

2. All forms acknowledging employees’ receipt of defendants’ revised

2 discrimination and anti-retaliation policy and complaint procedure;

3

3. All documents verifying the occurrence of all training sessions and names and

4 positions of all attendees for each session as required under this Decree; and

5

4. All documents demonstrating the monitoring of employees against whom

6 Defendants’ investigation substantiated a complaint of sex harassment and/or retaliation.

7

B. Reporting

8

1. Lexus shall provide the written reports to the EEOC as follows:

9

a) Within 120 days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall submit to the

10 EEOC an initial report which contains:

11

(i) A copy of the policy against sexual harassment, discrimination and

12 retaliation and any revisions to the policy thereafter;

13

(ii) A summary of the procedures and record keeping methods

14 developed by the Consultant for handling, tracking, and monitoring of complaints of discrimination

15 and retaliation;

16

(iii)A statement confirming that the Notice required by this Decree and

17 the revised policy have been posted and distributed; and

18

(iv)A statement confirming that all employees have received the

19 revised policy.

20

2. Lexus shall also provide a report within one year of the effective date and a final

21 report within 90 days before the termination of this Decree which includes:

22

a) A list of the names and positions of employment of each employee who

23 attended each training required and provided under this Decree (categorized by supervisory versus

24 non-supervisory staff);

25

b) A list of the names and positions of each employee who failed to attend

26 the training, the reason training was not attended, and written confirmation that those employees

27 who missed training were trained within thirty (30) days of the missed training; and,

28

c) A brief description of all sexual harassment and/or retaliation complaints

14.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 15 of 19

1 made since the submission of the immediately preceding report required by this Consent Decree or

2 the Effective Date, whichever is most recent. This description shall include the names of the

3 individual alleging sex harassment or retaliation, the nature of the sex harassment or retaliation

4 alleged, the names of the alleged perpetrators, the dates of the alleged acts of sex harassment or

5 retaliation, a brief summary of how each complaint was resolved, the identity of the person(s) who

6 investigated and resolved each complaint, and a confidential statement from Consultant to the EEOC

7 regarding his or her assessment of the investigation and resolution. If a complaint of discrimination

8 or retaliation has not been resolved as of the time of the report, the result shall be included in the

9 next report.

10 X. MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY

11

A. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding of the Parties with respect to the

12 Matters contained herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Decree

13 will be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each of the

14 Parties.

15

B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered unlawful or unenforceable, the

16 Parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate amendments to this Decree in order to

17 effectuate the purposes of the Decree. In any event, the remaining provisions will remain in full

18 force and effect unless the purposes of the Decree cannot, despite the Parties’ best efforts, be

19 achieved.

20

C. By mutual agreement of the Parties, this Decree may be amended or modified in the

21 interest of justice and fairness in order to effectuate the provisions of this Decree.

22 XI. COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

23

A. The Parties expressly agree that if the EEOC has reason to believe that Defendants have

24 failed to comply with any provisions of this Consent Decree, the EEOC may petition this Court, or if

25 the Court has deferred dispute issues to Magistrate Judge Larson, to Magistrate Judge Larson

26 (hereafter “this Court”) to enforce the Decree. Prior to initiating such petition, the EEOC will notify

27 Defendants and their legal counsel of record, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice

28 shall specify the particular provision(s) that the EEOC believes has/have been breached. Absent a

15.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 16 of 19

1 showing by either party that the delay will cause irreparable harm, Defendants shall have sixty days

2 to attempt to resolve or cure the breach.

3

B. The Parties agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to resolve any

4 dispute referenced in the EEOC notice.

5

C. After sixty days have passed with no resolution or agreement to extend the time further,

6 the EEOC may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree, seeking all available relief,

7 including, but not limited to, the imposition of attorneys’ fees and costs and an extension of the term

8 of the Decree for such period of time as Defendants are shown to be in breach of the Decree.

9 XII. ADMINISTRATIVE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSENT DECREE

10

Defendants shall bear all costs associated with their obligations under this Consent Decree,

11 except as set forth herein.

12 XIII. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

13

Each party shall bear its own costs of suit and attorneys’ fees.

14 ///

15 ///

16 ///

17 ///

18 ///

19 ///

20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

16.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 17 of 19

1 XIV. COUNTERPARTS AND FACSIMILE SIGNATURES

2

This Decree may be signed in counterparts. A facsimile signature shall have the same

3 force and effect of an original signature or copy thereof.

4

Respectfully submitted,

5 January 11, 2006 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION William R. Tamayo, Regional Attorney David F. Offen-Brown, Supervisory Trial Attorney Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, Trial Attorney

BY: _______

__ ____________

William R. Tamayo

BY: ______

__ ____________

David F. Offen-Brown

BY: _______

__ ____________

Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

14 December 29, 2006
15
16

FINE, BOGGS, COPE & PERKINS, LLP John Boggs, Esq. David Hosilyk, Esq.

17

BY: ______

__ ____________

John Boggs, Esq. 18

Attorneys for Defendants LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE,

19

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and FIRST AMERICA

AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 20

21

ORDER

22

The Court hereby retains jurisdiction. The provisions of the foregoing Consent Decree are

23 hereby approved and compliance with all provisions thereof is fair and adequate.

24 25 1/22/07 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28

17.

Consent Decree; [Proposed] Order

EEOC v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL)

Case

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 18 of 19

1 Exhibit A-Claimant Release

2

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

3

In consideration for $_____________ paid to me by Lexus of Serramonte (“Lexus”) in

4

connection with the resolution of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al, Case Number Case Number C-05-00962-SBA-JL, I am voluntarily waiving my

5 rights as set forth in this Release of Claims.

6

1. Claims released. I understand that I am releasing the "Lexus Releasees" defined below from any claim for sexual harassment that occurred on or before my execution of this

7 release.

8

2. Laws affected. I understand that the claims released include claims for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-

9

5(f)(1). I understand that this means I am agreeing not to sue the Lexus Releasees with respect to the claims I am releasing.

10 3. Persons and entities released. I understand that the “Lexus Releasees” being
11 released includes the following entities and persons: Lexus of Serramonte, FAA Serramonte, L Inc., FirstAmerica Automotive, Inc. and Sonic Automotive, Inc., and, as the case may be, each of their
12 associates; owners; stockholders; affiliates; divisions; subsidiaries; parent companies, predecessors; successors; heirs; assigns; agents; directors; officers; partners; employees; insurers; representatives;
13 lawyers; and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or any of them.

14

4. Right to consult counsel. I understand that the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission is only charged with administering federal discrimination laws. I 15 acknowledge that, prior to signing this Release of Claims, I have been provided an opportunity to be

advised by counsel regarding my release of claims. 16

5. Right to file a charge with the EEOC. I understand that this release covers 17 claims for sexual harassment. I understand my right to file a charge at any time with the EEOC for
claims not covered by this Release. 18

19 Print Name:

20
Signature: 21

22

Date:

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 126 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 19 of 19

1 Exhibit B-TO BE PLACED ON EEOC LETTERHEAD

2

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

3 TO: ALL LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE EMPLOYEES

4

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued Lexus of Serramonte and other related entities in federal court, Equal Employment Opportunity

5

Commission v. Lexus of Serramonte, et al, Case Number C-05-00962-SBA-JL. The EEOC claimed that female employees were sexually harassed. Lexus of Serramonte

6

denied all of these allegations. To avoid protracted litigation, the parties have settled the case. Under a court signed consent decree, Lexus of Serramonte agreed to pay monetary

7

relief to the women in the lawsuit and to provide a process by which the EEOC can search for and obtain relief for other women who were not included in the lawsuit.

8

Lexus further agreed to take further measures to ensure that it maintains a discrimination-free workplace, including additional training of all employees on how to

9 correct and prevent unlawful workplace harassment and retaliation.

10

Lexus of Serramonte will not tolerate sex harassment or discrimination against any persons because of their sex, national origin, age, race, color, religion, or disability; and

11

will not tolerate retaliation that violates federal employment discrimination laws. If you harass or discriminate against any Lexus of Serramonte employee you may be disciplined

12 and fired.

13

If you think that you have been harassed or retaliated against based on your sex, national origin, age, race, color, religion, or disability, you can complain to the human

14

resources department by contacting Vicki Sylvia, Director of Associate Development, 7000 Las Vegas Blvd. North, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89115, telephone: (702)

15 632-3315or their confidential hotline at 1 (877) 888-0002.

16

Even if you complain to Lexus of Serramonte, you have a right to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the discrimination. You can

17 call the EEOC at (800) 669-4000.

18

Federal law prohibits sex harassment, retaliation and discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the person’s age, disability, race, sex,

19 color, religion or national origin.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19.

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 1 of 16

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, PROTO, PRVADR, REFDISC, REFSET-WDB
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05-cv-00962-SBA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lexus of Serramonte et al Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Referred to: Magistrate Judge James Larson Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 03/08/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 415-625-5658 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Elizabeth.EsparzaCervantes@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David F. Offen-Brown Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 415-625-5658 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: David.Offen-Brown@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda S. Ordonio-Dixon Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 (415) 625-5654 Fax: (415) 625-5657 Email: linda.ordonio-dixon@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Robert Tamayo

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 2 of 16

V. Defendant Lexus of Serramonte
Defendant Sonic Automotive, Inc. Defendant First America Automotive

U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415-625-5645 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Phillip Boggs Fine, Boggs & Perkins LLP 2450 S. CABRILLO HWY., SUITE 100 Suite B200 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 650-712-8908 Fax: 650-712-1712 Email: jboggs@employerlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Phillip Boggs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David J. Reese Fine, Boggs, Cope & Perkins LLP 330 Golden Shore, Suite 410 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 366-0861 Fax: (562) 366-0874 Email: DReese@employerlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Phillip Boggs (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/08/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT For Civil Rights Employment Discrimination & Jury Trial Demand - [Summons Issued] against Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc. & First America Automotive, [Filing Fee: Waived/Government]. Filed by PlaintiffEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2005) Additional

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 3 of 16

03/08/2005 03/08/2005
03/08/2005 03/11/2005
04/12/2005
04/13/2005 04/21/2005 05/23/2005 07/06/2005 07/06/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005 08/08/2005

attachment(s) added on 4/20/2005 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/09/2005)
Summons Issued as to Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2005) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due 7/7/2005 & Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/14/2005 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order).(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2005) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
3 AMENDED ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due 7/20/2005 & Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/27/2005 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2005) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
4 CLERK'S NOTICE RE CONSENT OR DECLINE TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE; COUNSEL TO RESPOND BY 4/26/05 (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
5 CLERK'S NOTICE To Plaintiff's Counsel re: Failure to E-File and/or Failure to Register as an E-Filer. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2005) (Entered: 04/13/2005)
6 CONSENT to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 4/21/2005) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
7 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint byLexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 5/23/2005) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
8 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Mediation by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive (Boggs, John) (Filed on 7/6/2005) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
9 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 7/6/2005) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
10 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by First America Automotive, etc (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
11 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
12 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Judge Edward M. Chen no

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 4 of 16

08/26/2005 09/15/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005 01/18/2006
01/18/2006

longer assigned to case. Signed by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE on 8/8/05. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2005) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
13 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASES: Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2005 03:00 PM., via telephone. Signed by Judge Armstrong on 8/26/05. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2005) Modified on 8/29/2005 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/26/2005)
14 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/15/2005) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
15 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 9/22/2005 before JUDGE ARMSTRONG (Date Filed: 9/23/2005). (Court Reporter NOT REPORTED.) (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Private ADR for Mediation. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge for Settlement (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
16 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 6/30/2006. Jury Trial set for 10/2/2006 08:30 AM. Motions due by 8/15/2006. Pretrial Conference set for 9/26/2006 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Armstrong on 9/26/05. SEE PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER FOR ALL OTHER DATES AND DEADLINES(lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2005) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/29/2005 (lrc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2005)
17 Emergency MOTION to Continue Third Party Subpoena Compliance Deadline, MOTION to Shorten Time alternatively, shorten time for a Hearing of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas, MOTION for Hearing filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 1/23/2006 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion to Change Time# 2 Proposed Order Granting Extension of Third Party Record Subpoena Compliance Date# 3 Proposed Order Alternatively, Granting Shortened Time to Hear Motion to Quash Defendants Third Party Record Subpoenas# 4 EsparzaCervantes Decl. Supporting Motion to Change Time# 5 Exhibit 1 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl (pp 1-9)# 6 Exhibit 1 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl (pp 10-15)# 7 Exhibit 1 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl (pp 16-18)# 8 Exhibit 1 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl (pp 19-24)# 9 Exhibit 1 to EsparzaCervantes Decl (pp 25-27)# 10 Exhibit 2 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl# 11 Exhibit 3 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 1/18/2006) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
18 Brief re 17 Emergency MOTION to Continue Third Party Subpoena Compliance Deadline MOTION to Shorten Time alternatively, shorten time for a Hearing of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 5 of 16

01/19/2006 01/20/2006 01/20/2006
01/20/2006
01/20/2006

Lodged Documents for Motion Shorten Hearing of EEOC's Motion to Quash filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order for Lodged Brief of Motion to Quash Defendants Subpoenas# 2 Notice of Motion for Lodged Brief of Motion to Quash Defendants Third Party Records Subpoenas# 3 Declaration Supporting Lodged Brief of Motion to Quash Defendants Third Party Records Subpoenas# 4 Exhibit 1 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 5 Exhibit 2 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 6 Exhibit 3 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 7 Exhibit 4 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 8 Exhibit 5 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 9 Exhibit 6 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 10 Exhibit 7 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 11 Exhibit 8 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 12 Exhibit 9 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 13 Exhibit 10 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 14 Exhibit 11 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash# 15 Exhibit 12 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash (pp 1-6)# 16 Exhibit 12 to Lodged Esparza-Cervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash (pp 7-10)# 17 Exhibit 12 to Lodged EsparzaCervantes Decl Re: Motion to Quash (pp 11-15))(Related document(s) 17) (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 1/18/2006) Modified on 1/19/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2006)
19 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for all Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge Armstrong on 1/19/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2006) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge for Discovery James Larson. (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2006) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
20 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion To Change Time: Extending Time for Compliance With Fed R. Civ. P. 45 Record Subpoenas, or, in The Alternative, Shorten Time For Hearing Of EEOC's Motion To Quash And For A Protective Order filed byLexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
21 Declaration in Support re 20 Opposition To EEOC's Motion To Change Time: Extending Time For Compliance With Fed R. Civ. P. 45 Record Subpoenas, Or, In The Alternative, Shorten Time For Hearing Of EEOC's Motion To Quash And For A Protective Order filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006) Modified on 1/23/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
MOTIONS 17 Emergency MOTION to Continue Third Party Subpoena Compliance Deadline MOTION to Shorten Time alternatively, shorten time for a Hearing of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants' Subpoenas MOTION for Hearing REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James Larson. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2006) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 6 of 16

01/26/2006 01/27/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006
02/06/2006 02/22/2006 03/22/2006 04/11/2006 04/19/2006

22 Reply to Opposition EEOC's Motion to Change Time filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4 to Reply re: EEOC's Motion to Change Time)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 1/26/2006) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
23 ORDER by Judge James Larson Granting 17 Motion to Continue, Granting 17 Motion to Shorten Time, Granting 17 Motion for Hearing. Motion to Quash shall be heard on February 22, 2006 @ 9:30 a.m. Courtroom F, 15th Flr, 450 Golden Gate Ave, S.F., CA. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2006) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
24 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 2/22/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re: EEOC's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for a Protective Order)(EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 1/31/2006) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
25 Declaration of Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes in Support of 24 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for Protective Order filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl. (pp 1-5)# 2 Exhibit 12 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl. (pp6-10)# 3 Exhibit 12 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl. (pp11-15)# 4 Errata 1 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 5 Errata 2 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 6 Exhibit 4 to EsparzaCervantes Decl.# 7 Exhibit 5 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 8 Exhibit 3 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 9 Exhibit 6 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 10 Exhibit 7 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 11 Exhibit 8 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 12 Exhibit 9 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 13 Exhibit 10 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.# 14 Exhibit 11 to Esparza-Cervantes Decl.) (Related document(s)24) (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 1/31/2006) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
26 Memorandum in Opposition EEOC'S MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 2/6/2006) Modified on 2/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/06/2006)
27 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/22/2006 before Magistrate Judge James Larson (Date Filed: 2/22/2006). (Tape #FTR 9:49-10:07.) (wh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/22/2006) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge James Larson granting 24 Motion to Quash, granting 24 Motion for Protective Order (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2006) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
29 NOTICE by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive Notice of Firm Name Change (Boggs, John) (Filed on 4/11/2006) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
30 STIPULATION With Proposed Order to Continue Discovery Cut Off by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 7 of 16

04/24/2006 06/20/2006 07/06/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/24/2006 07/26/2006 07/26/2006
07/31/2006 08/01/2006

Elizabeth) (Filed on 4/19/2006) Modified on 4/20/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2006)
31 STIPULATION AND ORDER Discovery due by 7/31/2006.. Signed by Judge Armstrong on 4/24/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2006) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
32 STIPULATION to Continue Discovery and Corresponding Pretrial and Trial Dates by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 6/20/2006) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
33 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Employee List filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/6/2006) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
34 ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 32 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/10/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2006) Modified on 7/11/2006 (kc, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2006)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery cut-off deadline is extended to 8/19/2006. Dispositive Motions hearing deadline is extended to 9/19/2006. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2006) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
35 Ex Parte Application To Shorten Time for Hearings on Discovery Motions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 7/24/2006) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
36 Separate Statement re Motion to Compel; Employee List; Request for Protective Order filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 7/26/2006) Modified on 7/28/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 7/28/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2006)
37 ***DUPLICATE ENTRY, SAME AS DOCUMENT 36***
MOTION for Discovery Defendants' Separate Statement Regarding EEOC's Motion to Compel Defendants' Employee List; Request for Protective Order by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive (Boggs, John) (Filed on 7/26/2006) Modified on 7/27/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2006)
38 ORDER by Magistrate Judge James Larson Denying 35 Ex Parte Application Shorten Time for Hearing of EEOC's Discovery Motion. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2006) Modified on 8/1/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/31/2006)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Linda S. Ordonio-Dixon (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 8/1/2006) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 8 of 16

08/02/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/04/2006
08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/14/2006
08/14/2006

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil for Settlement (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2006) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
40 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 8/4/06. ORIGINAL MOTION CUT-OFF DEADLINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 8/15/06 INSTEAD OF 9/26/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2006) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
41 Memorandum in Opposition re Notice of Motion and Hearing Regarding EEOC's Motion to Compel Defendant's Employee List filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 8/4/2006) Modified on 8/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2006)
42 CLERK'S NOTICE Settlement Conference set for 8/28/2006 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1) (wdblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2006) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
43 OBJECTION re 36 & 41 Defendants' Employee List & Memorandum in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/4/2006) Modified on 8/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 8/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/04/2006)
44 Minute Entry: Defendant's emergency motion for protective order held on 8/4/2006 before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 8/4/2006). (Court Reporter telephonic - not reported.) (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/4/2006) Modified on 8/8/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2006)
45 Minute Entry: Request for Telephone Conference denied (Date Filed: 8/4/2006). () (wh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/4/2006) Modified on 8/8/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/07/2006)
46 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 8/9/2006 before James Lason (Date Filed: 8/9/2006). (Tape #FTR 9:42-9:51.) (wh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2006) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
47 ORDER by Judge Larson granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Compel (jllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Esparza-Cervantes# 2 Affidavit of Ordonio-Dixon# 3 Exhibit 1 through 4# 4 Proposed Order)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 8/14/2006) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
49 Ex Parte Application to Set Hearing Date for Summary Judgment Motion for September 19, 2006. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 9 of 16

08/14/2006 08/15/2006 08/15/2006 08/16/2006 08/18/2006 08/23/2006 08/24/2006
08/25/2006 08/25/2006 08/28/2006 08/28/2006 08/29/2006

8/14/2006) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
50 STIPULATION re 47 Order on Motion to Compel Stipulated Protective Order: [Proposed] Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/14/2006) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
51 ERRATA re 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 8/15/2006) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
52 ORDER. Signed by Judge James Larson on 8/15/06. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2006) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
53 STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order re 47 Order on Motion to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/16/2006) Modified on 8/17/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2006)
54 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER re 53 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge James Larson on 8/18/06. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2006) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
55 OBJECTIONS to The Magistrate's Order Granting Motion to Compel Production of Employee Lists by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 8/23/2006) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
56 Emergency Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time to Hear Defendants Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 8/25/2006 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1)(EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/24/2006) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
57 ERRATA re 56 Emergency Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time to Hear Defendants Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/25/2006) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
58 ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 56 Application to Shorten Time for Hearing (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2006) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
59 ORDER Continuing Settlement Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 8/28/06. (wdblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2006) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: re 59 Settlement Conference set for 9/14/2006 02:00 PM. (jlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2006) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
60 Declaration of Vicki Sylvia in Support re opposition to plaintiff's motion

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 10 of 16

08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/29/2006
08/30/2006 08/30/2006 08/31/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/05/2006

for partial summary judgment filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 8/29/2006) Modified on 8/30/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2006)
61 OBJECTIONS to Evidence submitted in the declaration of Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes with Exhibits 1-4 by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 8/29/2006) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
62 Memorandum in Opposition re motion for partial summary judgment filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 8/29/2006) Modified on 8/30/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2006)
63 Declaration of David Hosilyk in Support re opposition to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 8/29/2006) Modified on 8/30/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2006)
64 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Motion to Compel Production of Employee Lists filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/30/2006) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
65 Emergency Ex Parte Application re 64 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Motion to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/30/2006) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
66 Proposed Order re 65 Emergency Ex Parte Application by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/31/2006) Modified on 9/1/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/31/2006)
67 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 49 Ex Parte Application FOR ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
68 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 65 Ex Parte Application (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
69 Memorandum in Opposition re EEOC's Ex Parte Application for Immediate Denial of Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate's Order Granting Motion to Compel Production of Employee Lists filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) Modified on 9/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/05/2006)
70 Joint Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2006) Modified on 9/7/2006 (jlm,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 11 of 16

09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006

COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/05/2006)
71 Joint Pretrial Conference Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/5/2006) Modified on 9/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/05/2006)
72 Exhibit List by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive.. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
73 Reply Memorandum re 48 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Esparza-Cervantes# 2 Exhibit 5# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8# 6 Exhibit 9# 7 Exhibit 10# 8 Affidavit Strayhorn)(OrdonioDixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/5/2006) Modified on 9/7/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/05/2006)
74 Exhibit List - Plaintiff's Designations of Discovery Excerpts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s 44 to 48)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
75 Exhibit List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
76 Proposed Form of Verdict by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
77 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
78 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
79 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Questionnaire. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
80 Witness List by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
81 Proposed Jury Instructions by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 12 of 16

09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/05/2006
09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/06/2006 09/06/2006
09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006

82 TRIAL BRIEF by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
83 Proposed Voir Dire by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
84 Proposed Form of Verdict by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive Defendants' Proposed Special Verdict Form-Annie Wei. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
85 Proposed Form of Verdict by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive Defendants' Proposed Special Verdict Form- Salma Rashid. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
86 TRIAL BRIEF by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
87 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2006) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
88 Exhibit List with Plaintiff's Notice of Errata by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Attachments: # 1)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/6/2006) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
89 Proposed Jury Instructions by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive, Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive Defendants' Objections to EEOC's Proposed Jury Instructions and Argument in Support of Objections. (Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/6/2006) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
90 Proposed Order re 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) Amended by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (OrdonioDixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/8/2006) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
91 CLERK'S NOTICE Settlement Conference set for 9/14/2006 01:30 PM. (wdblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2006) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
92 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 48 Motion for Summary Judgment (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
93 Reply Memorandum to defendant's Trial Brief filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 13 of 16

09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006

94 Third MOTION in Limine Testimony and Evidence Regarding EEOC's Administrative Investigation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 9/26/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration# 2 Declaration# 3 Proposed Order # 4 Exhibit 1# 5 Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit 3)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
95 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re defendant's use of exhibit W, titled "DFEH PAMPLET - Sexual Harrassment Is Against The Law filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
96 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's Use Of "These Are The Gold Old Days" Video filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
97 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's Use of "2001 Employee Handbook Received By Annie Wei On Or About December 2001" filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
98 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's Use of the Video Deposition Transcript of Rashid and Wei filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
99 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of exhibits N through Q, from an earlier period of Ms. Wei's employment with Defendants filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
100 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Exhibit LL, titled Driver License ID card dated May 3, 2001 by Rashid filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
101 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re defendant's use of "EEOC AND WEI TELEVISION INTERVIEW" filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
102 First MOTION in Limine filed by Lexus of Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc., First America Automotive. Motion Hearing set for 10/2/2006 08:30 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 14 of 16

09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006

# 1 Exhibit Defendants Motion in Limine Part 2)(Boggs, John) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
103 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re defendant's use of case log and notes marked as exhibits WW, EEEE and FFFF filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
104 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Exhibits AA and CC, for Employment at the Gold Club at Least One Year After Leaving Defendant's Employment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
105 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Exhibits VV and ZZ, Notice of Unemployment Insurance Claim Filed and Wage Garnishment Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
106 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Exhibit's SS to UU, Alleged Employee Warning and Separation Notices for Ms. Downing filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
107 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Pre-1998 Personnel Documents, Exhibits AAA-BBB, III-JJJ, and NNN filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
108 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re defendant's use of exhibits A, J, and M, from an earlier period of Ms. Wei's employment with Defendants filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
109 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of the EEOC's discovery responses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
110 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of exhibit EE, titled "Kaiser Foundation Pharmacy Records for Annie Wei" filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
111 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendants' use of exhibit T, titled "What You Can Expect From Us" filed by Equal Employment

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 15 of 16

09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006

Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
112 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of 2001 Employee Handbook, Exhibit QQQQ filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
113 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Employment Records from Ms. Wei's Third Party Employers filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
114 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Exhibit's CCC, KKK, RRR, and KKKK, We Want To Know Hotline Documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
115 First MOTION in Limine Defendant's Trial Witnesses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 9/26/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration# 2 Exhibit # 3 Proposed Order)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
116 OBJECTIONS With Proposed Order re Defendant's use of Witnesses Never Previously Identified filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
117 Fourth MOTION in Limine EEOC Claimants filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 9/26/2006 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
118 Second MOTION in Limine Declaration of Elizabeth Esparza, Exhibits A to J filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12)(OrdonioDixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Modified on 9/13/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)
119 Declaration of Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, EEOC Trial Attorney in Support of EEOC Objections to Defendants' Trial Exhibits and Trial Witnesses filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(EsparzaCervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
120 Second MOTION in Limine re Annie Wei filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2006 01:00 PM in

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 16 of 16

09/14/2006 09/15/2006 09/19/2006 10/19/2006 01/18/2007
01/22/2007

Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit EsparzaCervantes# 2 Exhibit A# 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 Proposed Order # 15 Exhibit Order on Motion to Quash)(Ordonio-Dixon, Linda) (Filed on 9/12/2006) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
121 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference (Date Filed: 9/14/2006). () (wdblc1, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/14/2006) Modified on 9/18/2006 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
122 ORDER FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT Signed by Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 9/15/2006. (wdblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2006) Modified on 1/19/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/15/2006)
123 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/19/06. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
124 Proposed Order [Proposed Consent Decree] by First America Automotive. (Reese, David) (Filed on 10/19/2006) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
125 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Filed on 1/18/2007) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
126 ORDER re 125 Proposed Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/22/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2007) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/07/2007 20:55:03

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: EEOC

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 4:05-cv-00962-SBA

Billable Pages: 11

Cost:

0.88

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?530193036337701-L_923_0-1

5/7/2007