IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

KATHY C. KOCH,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

LA WEIGHT LOSS,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No. WDQ-02-CV-648
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of retaliation and sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Kathy Koch and a class of male applicants who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant discriminated against Ms. Koch by retaliating against her because she opposed its discriminatory hiring practices, and that Defendant engaged in a continuing violation of Title VII by discriminated against males as a class by failing to hire them on the basis of their sex.

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343, and
1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706 (f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and 2000e-6; Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a; and Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c). 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and other United States District Courts.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”), is the
agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and 2000e-6, and Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant LA Weight Loss (“the Employer”) has continuously been a Pennsylvania corporation doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has been a covered entity under Section 701(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Kathy Koch filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by the Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
8. Since at least February 1997, and continuing to the present, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in its facilities in all its regions nationwide, in violation of Sections 703(a), 704(a) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a) and 2000e-6. These practices include: (A) taking adverse action and terminating Kathy Koch on the basis of her opposition to its unlawful employment practices; (B) engaging in a pattern and practice of sexually discriminatory hiring practices, constituting a continuing violation of Title VII, that adversely affects the opportunities of males to become employed by Defendant by: i. continuously refusing to hire qualified male applicants in all job categories and in all regions; ii. continuously maintaining a workforce that under-represents males in the general work force, and under-represents males in particular job categories. (C) continuously maintaining a system of recruiting, hiring and assigning employees that
3

adversely affects the opportunities of males to become employed in higher paying and/or management positions. 9. The effect of the practices complained of above was to deprive Ms. Koch of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her conduct protected by Section 704(a) of Title VII. 10. The effect of the practices complained of above was to deprive males as a class of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants and as employees because of their sex. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-10 were intentional. 12. The employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-10 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Kathy Koch and males as a class. 13. In addition, since at least February 1997, Defendant Employer has failed to preserve, for at least one year from the date of making of the records and/or personnel action involved, various personnel and employment records that it has made or kept and has failed to preserve relevant records until final disposition of a charge of discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Commission’s Regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. Such records include, but are not limited to, certain applications for employment, resumes, cover letters, other hiring process-related documents, payroll and personnel documents, and documents related to the employment of Plaintiff-Intervenor Koch and/or claims and defenses concerning Koch.
4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex by rejecting male applicants on the basis of their sex. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex by depriving male employees of promotion opportunities and/or management positions. C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from retaliating against employees for engaging in conduct protected by Section 704(a) of Title VII, including but not limited to opposing unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for males, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kathy Koch and a class of unsuccessful male applicants by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgement interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstating Kathy Koch, hiring
5

male class members, and front pay. F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kathy Koch and a class of unsuccessful male
applicants by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 8-10 above, including but not limited to medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial. G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kathy Koch and a class of unsuccessful male applicants by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-10 above, including emotional and physical pain, suffering and mental anguish, in amounts to be determined at trial. H. Order Defendant Employer to pay Kathy Koch and a class of unsuccessful male applicants punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraphs 8- 10 above, in amounts to be determined at trial. I. Order Defendant Employer to preserve personnel and employment records in compliance with the requirements of Title VII and the Commission’s Regulations and order such other relief in connection with the proceedings and trial of this action that is appropriate in light of Defendant’s failure to preserve personnel and employment records as required by law, including but not limited to charging the jury with adverse inference instructions regarding records no longer available due to Defendant’s failure to comply with Title VII and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 or other improper disposition of evidence. J. Grant such other further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
6

K. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its amended
complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
/s/ GERALD S. KIEL (Bar No. 07770) Regional Attorney
/s/ TRACY HUDSON SPICER (Bar No.08671) Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ RONALD L. PHILLIPS Trial Attorney Baltimore District Office City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone number: (410) 962-4628 Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270/2817
7

 
 CHAMBERS OF PAUL W. GRIMM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
April 6, 2004

101 W. LOMBARD STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-4560 (410) 962-3630 FAX

RE: EEOC and Kathy Koch v. LA Weight Loss, WDQ-02-0648.
LETTER ORDER
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Rule 33 and 34 discovery is ripe for ruling. (Paper Nos. 36, 42, 52 and 58). The Court has fully considered each party’s briefs. The attached chart contains the Court’s rulings (attachment 1), and is incorporated by reference.
With respect to Plaintiff, Kathy Koch’s, request that attorney’s fees be awarded, Plaintiff, will, within 11 calendar days, file a particularized statement of costs and attorney’s fees incurred in filing her motion to compel, not exceeding five pages (exclusive of exhibits). Defendant then will have five business days, and five pages, to file any opposition. Thereafter, Plaintiff will have three business days, and three pages to file any reply.
In addition, it is apparent from responses to discovery motions that non-local counsel for Defendant lacks familiarity with the local rules and discovery guidelines for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Until such time that Defendant’s non-local counsel certifies in writing that he and all other attorneys participating in this case have carefully read the local rules and discovery guidelines, nonlocal counsel may not further participate in discovery in this case.
Finally, all future discovery disputes will be handled by the attached procedures (attachment 2), which are incorporated by reference.
This is an order of the Court to be filed by the clerk as such.

/s/ Paul W. Grimm

United States Magistrate Judge

EEOC and Kathy Koch v. LA Weight Loss WDQ-02-0648
Motion to Compel Rule 33 & 34 Discovery (Paper No. 58)

Discovery Sought
I 6 - Identify and describe each complaint (written, oral, internal, or outside) of retaliation made by any LA Weight Loss employees against any other employee, or against LA Weight Loss, in the MD/DE region from 1997 until the present.

Ruling
Motion granted. The information sought is relevant, and the time period covered by the request is not excessive, given the claims pleaded in the complaint. Defendant’s answer is incomplete, and evasive, which is tantamount to a failure to answer. Rule 37(a)(3). Moreover, Defendant’s burden and overbreadth objections are boilerplate, and therefore waived, Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 219 F.R.D. 93 (D. Md. 2003), Marens v. Carraba’s Italian Grill, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 35 (D. Md. 2000), Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 191 F.R.D. 495 (D. Md. 2000); and Defendant has failed to particularize any claims of privilege or work product as required by Rule 26(b)(5) and Guideline 9.c. Further, Defendant has not demonstrated that, as required by Rule 33(d), a fully responsive and complete answer to I 6 can be derived from the documents it produced pursuant to RPD 5. Defendant will supplement its answer to fully and completely respond to the interrogatory, including identifying persons with personal knowledge of the facts, and a description of any responsive documents, other than those already produced in response to RPD 5, in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to locate them.

I 7 - Identify and describe all formal complaints of retaliation in the MD/DE region filed with the United States EEOC or any other human rights commission, or as a lawsuit against LA Weight Loss from 1996 through the present.

Motion granted for same reason as stated for I 6.

I 9 - Identify and describe the policies, practices and procedures to be followed by any employee making a complaint against LA Weight Loss or any other employee with respect to gender discrimination and/or retaliation.
I 17 - Identify and describe all complaints (written, oral, formal, internal, or outside) regarding LA Weight Loss’ new-hire application and/or hiring policies from 1997 to the present.

Motion granted for same reason stated for I 6. While Rule 26(b)(2) does identify multiple factors from which the court may, sua sponte, or in response to a Rule 26(c) motion, order that discovery be made from a source other than requested, Defendant failed to file a Rule 26(c) motion, and further has failed to particularize its conclusory assertion that it is less burdensome for Plaintiff to depose Ms. Siegel than it is for Defendant simply to answer the interrogatory completely, as required by Rule 37(a)(3). Conclusory assertions of burden or overbreadth fail to provide a basis to order relief under Rule 26(b), and are waived. Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 219 F.R.D. 93 (D. Md. 2003), Marens v. Carraba’s Italian Grill, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 35 (D. Md. 2000), Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 191 F.R.D. 495 (D. Md. 2000).
Motion granted for the same reasons stated in I 6 and I 9 (exclusive of the portion of the ruling in I 9 relating to the deposition of Ms. Siegel). Additionally, Defendant has failed to demonstrate the foundational requirements to avail itself of Rule 33(d) as it has failed to demonstrate that the burden of reviewing the documents identified and deriving the answer to I 17 substantially would be the same for Plaintiff as it would be for Defendant.

I 14 - Identify and describe fully the agenda and content of all training provided to area corporate trainers, corporate trainers and/or service trainers in 1997 and 1998, to include identifying the names of the trainers, etc.
I 15 - Identify all area corporate trainers, corporate trainers and/or service trainers employed by LA Weight Loss in 1997 and 1998.

Motion Granted. Defendant’s response is evasive and incomplete and tantamount to a refusal to answer. Rule 37(a)(3). Its claims of burden and overbreadth are boilerplate, and waived. Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 219 F.R.D. 93 (D. Md. 2003), Marens v. Carraba’s Italian Grill, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 35 (D. Md. 2000), Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 191 F.R.D. 495 (D. Md. 2000). Defendant has failed to establish the required foundation to rely on Rule 33(d) as its answer did not specify the documents from which the answer could be derived completely and responsively, and Defendant did not establish that the burden for Plaintiff derive the information from the documents would be the seem as it would be for the Defendant to provide it. Nor does the supplemental answer, which refers to documents produced in response to RPD 26, cure this defect, as Defendant has not shown that the complete answer to I 14 can be derived from those documents.
Motion granted, for reasons stated regarding I 14 (exclusive of the comments relating to RPD 26). Additionally, Defendant has not made the requisite showing to avail itself of Rule 33(d), as it has not demonstrated that the burden of deriving a complete and unevasive answer to the interrogatory from the documents produced previously substantially would be the same for Plaintiff as for Defendant.

RPD 7 - All correspondence between Kathy Koch and LA Weight Loss, or any correspondence concerning Kathy Koch by or to any LA Weight Loss employee, or concerning Kathy Koch by or to the EEOC or to any person other than LA Weight Loss.

Motion granted, as specified herein. The information sought clearly is relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and is therefore within the scope of discovery identified in Rule 26(b)(1). Further, Defendant’s assertions of overbreadth and burden are conclusory and boilerplate, and therefore are waived. Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 219 F.R.D. 93 (D. Md. 2003), Marens v. Carraba’s Italian Grill, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 35 (D. Md. 2000), Tucker v. Ohtsu Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., 191 F.R.D. 495 (D. Md. 2000). Further, the cases cited by Defendant in support of its refusal to supply a privilege log are inapplicable. Guideline 9.c., Appendix A to the Local Rules of this Court implements Rule 26(b)(5), and requires information typically provided in a privilege log. While this requirement may be overcome by a particularized showing of burden, as the commentary to Rule 26(b)(5) acknowledges, Defendant has failed to make a particularized showing of burden, and therefore has waived this basis for objecting to the information sought. See id. Defendant will provide a supplemental response that is fully responsive to this request. It is cautioned that an incomplete or evasive answer will violate both Rule 37(a)(3) and this Court’s order, and may subject Defendant to appropriate 37(b)(2) sanctions. As for any assertion of privilege of work product doctrine, the supplemental response will provide all the information required by Discovery Guideline 9.c, since Defendant’s prior conclusory assertion of burden has waived any burden argument to support not complying with the guideline that could have been made in Defendant’s original response. Any privilege asserted will be waived unless Defendant submits a privilege log fully complying with Discovery Guideline 9.c.

RPD 8 - All documents regarding Kathy Koch prepared by, or at the direction of, any LA Weight Loss employee.

Motion granted as stated. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that compliance with Guideline 9.c, Appendix A to the Local Rules of this Court would be unduly burdensome. See e.g., ruling regarding RPD 7. Defendant will supplement its answer by producing all responsive documents not previously produced, and, for any assertions of privilege or work product doctrine shall file a privilege log fully compliant with Guideline 9.c, as its claims of burden are waived.

RPD 12 - All documents that refer, reflect or relate to any complaints (internal, outside, formal or informal) made by any employee regarding LA Weight loss’ new-hire and/or hiring policies or procedures from 1997 to the present.

Motion Granted in Part, Denied in Part, as stated herein. Plaintiff has narrowed the temporal and geographic scope of its original request, and has articulated sufficient relevance of the documents sought to the retaliation claim pleaded in her complaint. Defendant cites no cases from the 4th Circuit or this District to support its refusal to provide the requested documents, and Plaintiff’s proffered reason for the relevance of the documents sought relating to discrimination against non-male employees is sufficient to make the cases cited distinguishable. With respect to Defendant’s refusal to provide documents responsive to this request based on privilege or work product, as supported by a privilege log compliant with Rule 26(b)(5) as implemented by Discovery Guideline 9.c, Plaintiff has not established a sufficient basis to demonstrate inapplicability/waiver of any privilege or the work product doctrine protection.

RPD 24 - All documents gathered during the preparation of Intervenor/Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
RPD 25 - All documents that refer, reflect or constitute any correspondence and/or any other documents received by LA from Kathy Koch after her termination.

Motion Granted in Part, Denied in Part. While the cases cited by Defendant do support the position that when an attorney culls through voluminous documents relating to threatened or actual litigation, and selects a sub-set of documents that he/she views as particularly relevant, attempts to discover that subset of documents involve opinion work product that is not subject to discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) and 26(b)(3) unless it is put to a testimonial use, or the work product doctrine otherwise is waived or inapplicable. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Twin Laboratories, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 458 (D. Md. 1998). However, Defendant appears to assert work product protection to all documents assembled since the defense of Plaintiff’s claim began, regardless of whether they fall within the scope of the above referenced cases. To the extent that Defendant has asserted the work product doctrine too broadly, the refusal to produce responsive documents is not justified, and, as to those documents, they shall be produced. In any event, with respect to any responsive document that Defendant construes to withhold on the basis of privilege or work product doctrine, it shall be identified in a privilege log fully compliant with Rule 26(b)(5) as implemented by Discovery Guideline 9.c.
Motion Granted. Defendant’s overbreadth, relevance and privilege/work product objections are conclusory, boilerplate, and waived, for the reasons cited in the above rulings. Responsive documents not already produced shall be.

RPD 26 - All documents that refer, reflect or constitute the training provided by area corporate trainers, corporate trainers and/or service trainers to center counselors in the MD/DE region.

This dispute should have been resolved by counsel without Court involvement. To the extent that responsive documents involve proprietary information of Defendant, production shall be subject to the existing confidentiality order. Further, while Defendant asserts that it has produced all responsive documents in its “possession,” this may be an evasive answer, as Rule 34 clearly pertains to all documents in its possession, custody or control. If there are any responsive documents in either of these categories, they shall be produced subject to the confidentiality order. If there are no further documents in Defendant’s possession, custody or control that have not already been produced, Defendant shall serve a certification to this effect on Plaintiff which shall include a statement under oath by a representative of the defendant with personal knowledge of the facts particularizing the efforts taken to locate the responsive documents, as it appears from the Portlock deposition that Plaintiff did return some materials to the Defendant that it did not produce. Further, if responsive documents were destroyed or otherwise not preserved, the statement will provide an explanation for this, sufficient to enable the court to determine whether spoilation of evidence occurred, and if so whether an adverse jury instruction would be appropriate.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICI' COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUN1TY .

COMMISSION

Plaintiff.

and

.

:

CASE NO.: WDQ 02-CV-648

KATHY KOCH
v.

In t erven0rIP lain tiff,

JURY DEMANDED
. .
.

LA WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS,INC.

.

Defendant.

.

. .

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WHEREAS,the partieshaveenteredinto a SettlementAgreementdatedNovember21,

2005.which providesfor thefiling of this StipulationandOtder ofDismissa1; NOW nIEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULA TED AND AGREED. by and between

the Intervenor/PlaintifTK. athyKoch andDefendant,LA Weight LossCentersI,nc., that Kathy Koch voluntarily dismissesall herclaimsin this civil action.with prejudiceandwithout coststo

eitherparty.

SO STIPULATED: FOR KATHY KOCH

OBER.KALER. GRIMES1HRIVER

P;;~tc.~: ~~~ * BCZ A..J'I-{,. ~-;'--,;e;

"

120EastBaltimoreS~ -:-~

- C) Bal~ore. MD 21202-1643

.;-.Z

>-

t::;<{

I-

::::;-J

.5- w

~

0>-

ow

0-

J-,.ua::

~

izC::: L..J

~..-<{

u-

!.La

q

f..&.Ju;1:

o~

.;.-I~ ~

a- 'J) ,:::

-1-0
t-.0 V> ..-

N

..,J

-- ::=- ~::x:: c..c::rJ

ouo-Ct ~ono~ z- --1f-.-

::;,cn =~

~I-

~

(~

,

~

OBER KALER A Professional CO(poration
Ober. Kaler, Grimes 81 Shriver Attorneys at Law
120 East Baltimore Street Baltimore. MD 21202.1643 410-685-1120 I Fax443-263-7523 MVN.ober.COIn

November29, 2005

Pamela J. White pjwhiteCober.com 410-347-7323
OfficesIn
Maryiaoo Washington.D.C. Virginia

VIA HAND DELIVERY
HonorableWilliam D. Quarles,Jr. United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Maryland GamtatzFederalCourthouse 101W. LombardStreet,Chambers3A Baltimore,Maryland 21201
Re EEOC,et al. v. LA WeightLossCenters,Inc Civil No.: WDQ-O2-cv-648
DearJudgeQuarles:
Kathy C. Koch and LA Weight Loss Centers,Inc. haveagreedto confidentialterms of settlementof all issuesbetweenthosetwo parties. The EEOC is expectedto proceedin the remaininglitigation on its claimsagainstLA Weight Loss,andis not a party to the confidential settlemenat greemenet xistingbetweenMs. Koch andLA WeightLoss.
1 The Court's considerationis appreciatedto orderthe dismissalof Ms. Koch's claim, with
preju?ice,as indicatedin the encl ed Stipulation. Pleasecall me or BruceHarrisonwith any questIons.
Respectfully,
C?~A .Oa
PamelaJ. White
PJW/cks Enclosure cc: David E. Landau,Esquire(via fax andU.S.mail)
BruceHarrison,Esquire(via fax andU.S. mail) RonaldL. Phillips, Esquire(via fax andU.S.mail) TracyHudson-SpicerE, squire(via fax andU.S. mail)

776966

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURTflLED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYL~O~ISuTn~.R'Dr I~STR-:I-C,"T'.~:C'O!RU1LRATtiO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNTTY COMM ISSION
Plaintiff
VS.

•

IUUSJ~N IS A II} 33

•

WDqNJ?y8 CALTERa~~'LSl1OHOffRiEC.E
Civil Action No.:

•

BY-

LA WEIGHT LOSS Defendant

•
******

ORDER

Defendant having filed bankruptcy proceedings in which an automatic stay has been

~ issued, it is, this

day of January 2008,

ORDERED that tbis action be administratively closed without prejudice to the right of

plaintiff to move to reopen this action for good cause shown.

~ '. ~;.

"

I '/

'

till am D, Quarles, Jr.

~Ied States District Judge

 
 FILED
;; ~ lI1B&W;1l~MTATES DI STR ICT CO L' RT
DIS TO FOR i'AR'IllSIIIUCT OF MARYLA~D

IUUS FEB -4 P Co I b

EQUAL E"l'LO"~ I Et\'T OPPORTCi\' ITY

)

CO;\ IMI SS ION,

CLE RK 'S OFFICE AT BALTIMORE

) )

PIaUI/,,-rif,,-,_ _

DEPUTY

)

)

" .

)

)

LA WEI C HT LOSS,

)

)

Dcfc ndanl.

)

)

I
L 'j
t
vS

I'LAIt\'TIFF EEOC'S i\ IOTION TO RF>O I)EN CASE

In accordance with Local Rule 105 and this Court's Order of January 15,2008 (Paper No.

213), Plaintiff U.s. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") respectfully requests

that the Coun re-open the above-styled and numbered action for the reason that the automatic

stay provision set forth in the United Stales Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.c. § 362, is inapplicable to

this action. The EEOC is specifically exempted from the automatic stay provision under J 1

U.S.c. § 362(b)(4). As such. the EEOC is entitled 10 proceed with its lawsuit against Defendant

for violations of Tille VI! of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The EEOC moves this

Court for an order reopening this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

EQUAL EMJ>LOY~IENT COMMISS ION

O PPO RTUNITY

Is. TRACY llUnSON SPICER (Bar No. 08671) Supervisory Trial Anomey EEOC-Washington Field Office 1801 L Street, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20507 Office #: (202) 4 19-071 I

 
 Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION

*

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

* CIVIL NO.: WDQ-02-0648

LA WEIGHT LOSS,

*

Defendant.

*

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”)

has sued LA Weight Loss Centers, Inc. (“LAWL”), for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,1 as amended (“Title

VII”). Pending are LAWL’s motions for summary judgment and

partial summary judgment, the EEOC’s motion for partial summary

judgment, and the parties’ motions for leave to file surreply

memoranda. For the following reasons, LAWL’s motions for

summary and partial summary judgment will be denied, the EEOC’s

motion for partial summary judgment will be granted in part and

denied in part, and the motions for leave to file surreplies

will be denied.

1 Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 253; as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.
1

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 26
I. Background LAWL is a Pennsylvania corporation and “leading national
weight loss company.” Amended Compl. ¶ 4; Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mem.”) 2. Since its founding in 1997, LAWL has offered nutritional plans, diet aids, and counseling services to its clients, and today operates approximately 400 weight-loss centers in Maryland and several other states. Def.’s Mem. 2, 5-6.
On June 22, 1998, Kathy Koch, a former LAWL employee, filed an amended employment discrimination charge with the EEOC, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about LAWL’s failure to hire qualified male applicants. Def.’s Mem. 25, Ex. XX (amended charge). The EEOC commenced an investigation, and issued a letter of determination on September 14, 2000, finding reasonable cause that LAWL: (1) retaliated against Koch, and (2) discriminated against men in selection and hiring in all positions throughout the company. Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of its Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) 2-4, App. C, Ex. 1, EEOC 00032-33 (letter of determination).
On February 22, 2002, the EEOC filed its original Complaint against LAWL, claiming LAWL (1) engaged in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment of men in its recruiting, hiring, and
2

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 26
assignment of employees, and (2) retaliated against Koch for opposing such practices. Paper No. 1. On July 15, 2002, Koch intervened as a plaintiff with her retaliation claim, and filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2002. Papers No. 13, 21.
On March 24, 2004, the EEOC filed its Amended Complaint, adding a claim that LAWL failed to preserve employment records as required under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and the EEOC’s pursuant regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. Paper No. 66.
On November 21, 2005, Koch entered into a settlement agreement with LAWL and voluntarily dismissed her retaliation claim with prejudice. Paper No. 144.
On March 9, 2007, following 33 months of discovery and attempts at settlement, LAWL filed its motion for summary judgment on all claims (Paper No. 177), and the EEOC filed its motion for partial summary judgment on its document-preservation claim (Paper No. 178). On May 4, 2007, LAWL filed its opposition to the EEOC’s motion, and incorporated a motion for partial summary judgment on the EEOC’s retaliation claim. Paper No. 183. Also pending is each party’s motion for leave to file surreplies to complement the 248 pages of memoranda already before the Court. Papers No. 194, 195.
3

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 26
II. Standard of Review Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary
judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Only “facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law” are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, “the judge’s function is not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 249. The court must also view any inferences drawn from the underlying facts “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
A party “must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. The mere existence of a “scintilla” of evidence is insufficient. Id. at 252. If the nonmoving party fails to show an essential element of his case on which he
4

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 26
will bear the burden of proof at trial, all other facts are rendered immaterial, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 323; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). III. Discussion A. Pattern or Practice of Disparate Treatment
LAWL moves for summary judgment on the EEOC’s claim that LAWL has engaged in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment of men in its recruiting, hiring, and assignment of employees. LAWL argues that: (1) the EEOC lacks evidence of a prima facie case of such a pattern or practice of disparate treatment; and (2) in the alternative, LAWL is entitled to summary judgment on the EEOC’s claims for male applicants who were denied employment prior to the charge-filing deadline in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). B. Pattern-or-Practice Legal Framework
Section 707 of Title VII empowers the EEOC to sue “any person or group of persons . . . engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by [Title VII].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6.
The EEOC bears the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of unlawful disparate treatment. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 (1977); E.E.O.C. v. Am. Nat. Bank, 652 F.2d 1176, 1188 (4th Cir.
5

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 6 of 26
1981), reh’g denied, 680 F.2d 965 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 923 (1982). “This prima facie showing may in a proper case be made out by statistics alone, or by a cumulation of evidence, including statistics, patterns, practices, general policies, or specific instances of discrimination.” Am. Nat. Bank, 652 F.2d at 1188 (citing, inter alia, Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 339; Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307-08 (1977)). Although most pattern-or-practice discrimination cases are proved through the use of statistics, statistical evidence is not necessary to establish a prima facie case. See United States v. Gregory, 871 F.2d 1239, 1243 (1989) (defendant’s admission of discriminatory practices proof of Title VII violation). However,
[p]roving isolated or sporadic discriminatory acts by the employer is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of discrimination; rather it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that [unlawful] discrimination was the company’s standard operating procedure-the regular rather than the unusual practice. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867, 875-76 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a prima facie case is established by the EEOC, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the inference of a pattern or practice of disparate treatment. Id.
6

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 7 of 26
C. Analysis of the Pattern-or-Practice Evidence To prove a prima facie case of disparate treatment of men,
the EEOC offers: (1) LAWL employee admissions of discriminatory practices; (2) testimony of rejected male applicants; (3) documentary evidence; and (4) statistical evidence.
The testimonial evidence alone demonstrates genuine issues of material fact regarding the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim. Admissions by upper-level LAWL employees made within the scope of their employment indicate a practice of disparate treatment of male job applicants, and rejected male applicants were told by LAWL officials that they would not be hired because of their sex.
Joy Freathy was an LAWL Regional Manager from 1997 through December 1999 whose responsibilities included interviewing potential area and center managers. Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 2 ¶ 1 (Freathy Decl.). Freathy attests that, during her employment, she was told by LAWL general manager Eileen Stankunas that Vahan Karian, LAWL’s sole owner and chief executive officer, told Stankunas that men were not to be hired for any positions. Id. ¶ 2.
Former LAWL mid-level employees Koch, Anastasia Meyer, and Pat Burroughs attest that Scott Moyer, LAWL’s chief operating officer from 1997 through mid 1998, and Kristi O’Brien, LAWL’s
7

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 8 of 26
director of training, instructed them during a November 1997 training event to refrain from hiring men. Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 4 at 25-26 (Moyer Dep.), Ex. 8 at 58 (O’Brien Dep.), Ex. 5 at 64-66, (Koch Dep.), Ex. 6 at 78-81 (Meyer Dep.), Ex. 7 at 2 (Burroughs Decl.). O’Brien also told LAWL manager Sandra Brown-Talavera that she was not supposed to hire males, and that such was Stankunas’s position on the matter. Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 11 at 65-66 (Aug. 1, 2003 Brown-Talavera Dep.), Ex. 16 at 50 (Apr. 30, 2001 Brown-Talavera Dep.).
In addition to other admissions by specific LAWL employees indicating a practice of sex discrimination (Pl.’s Opp’n 8-16), the EEOC also offers testimony from rejected male applicants who recount being told by unidentified LAWL hiring officials that LAWL would not hire them because of their sex. Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 62 at 8-12, 24-26 (Steve Comins Dep.), Ex. 63 at 73-74, 99-102 (James Gruber Dep.), Ex. 65 at 9, 17 (Everett Coleman Dep.).
LAWL challenges the value of this testimonial evidence by contending that the statements are “isolated remark[s] in the distant past,” from employees in only five states and the District of Columbia, and predate 2002. These arguments go to the probative value of the evidence, and are within the province of the fact-finder.
As for admissibility, the statements on LAWL’s hiring 8

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 9 of 26
policy by Karian, Stankunas, Moyer, and O’Brien are on a matter within the scope of their employment as CEO, general manager, COO, and director of training, are offered against LAWL, and thus are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).2 Similarly, the statements of the unidentified LAWL hiring officials in the applicants’ testimony are also admissible as party admissions, as the applicants’ depositions indicate that the declarants were involved in screening or interviewing applicants, making it reasonable to conclude that LAWL hiring practices were within the scope of the declarant’s employment. U.S. v. Portsmouth Paving Corp., 694 F.2d 312, 321-22 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, summary judgment for LAWL on the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim will be denied. D. Statutory Limitation on Certain Claims
LAWL contends that the deadline for filing an individual charge of unlawful employment practice in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) applies to the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. Thus, LAWL argues, the EEOC’s claims for male
2 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) provides that: [a] statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he statement is offered against the party and is . . . (D) a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d). 9

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 10 of 26
applicants who were denied employment more than 180 days before
the EEOC issued its September 14, 2000 determination letter are
time-barred.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, the EEOC may file a charge on
its own initiative when it has reason to believe that an
employer has engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory
conduct. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a), (c); EEOC v. Shell Oil Co.,
466 U.S. 54, 62 (1984). Although § 2000e-6 does not contain its
own statute of limitations, § 2000e-6(e) provides that the
EEOC’s actions under § 2000e-6 “shall be conducted in accordance
with the procedures set forth in section 2000e-5 of this title.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(e). 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e) requires that:
a charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred . . . except that in a case of an unlawful employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially instituted proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, such charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (emphasis added).
The Fourth Circuit has not ruled on whether the limitations
period of § 2000e-5(e) applies to pattern-or-practice cases
brought under § 2000e-6. In dicta, the Ninth Circuit noted
that: 10

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 11 of 26
some of the [§ 2000e-5] procedural requirements seem to apply only to individual unlawful employment practices and not to pattern or practice suits. . . . For example, [§ 2000e-5(e)] requires the filing of a charge within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Section [2000e-6], however, contains no requirement that anyone file a charge. A prima facie pattern or practice suit may be based solely on statistical evidence. Further, it takes more than one unlawful practice to constitute a “pattern or practice” of employment discrimination. Thus, there could be no certain date from which the 180-day period would run.
U.S. v. Fresno Unified School Dist., 592 F.2d 1088, 1096 n.5
(9th Cir. 1979).
A few district courts have applied the limitations period
of § 2000e-5(e) to EEOC pattern-or-practice claims based on the
“plain language” of § 2000e-6(e), E.g., E.E.O.C. v. Optical
Cable Corp., 169 F. Supp. 2d 539, 546 (W.D. Va. 2001); EEOC v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 490 F. Supp. 1245, 1260 (M.D. Ala. 1980).
However, others have not, finding that “the application of a
limitations period in a § [2000e-6] action does not make
intuitive or legal sense,” as an EEOC charge alleging a pattern
or practice of discrimination “involves a continuing violation”
that is “not amenable to a timeliness determination.” E.E.O.C.
v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of America, Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1059,
1084 (C.D. Ill. 1998); accord E.E.O.C. v. Scolari Warehouse
Markets, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1136 (D. Nev. 2007). At
least two commentators agree that there is no statute of
limitations under Title VII for pattern-or-practice suits 11

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 12 of 26
brought by the EEOC. Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 50:633 (Westlaw, June 2006); 4-75 Lex K. Larson, Employment Discrimination § 75.02[2] (Lexis 2d ed.1997) (concurring with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Fresno).
The language of sections 2000e-5(e) and 2000e-6(e) is not so plain as to warrant the application of § 2000e-5(e)’s limitations period for individual charges to pattern-or-practice claims brought by the EEOC under § 2000e-6. As reasoned by the Ninth Circuit in Fresno and the Central District of Illinois in Mitsubishi, § 2000e-6 permits the EEOC to remedy systematic violations of Title VII that occur over periods stretching well beyond § 2000e-5(e)’s charge-filing deadline against multiple victims. Fresno, 592 F.2d at 1096 n.5; Mitsubishi, 990 F. Supp. at 1084-86. Imposing the limitations period in § 2000e-5(e) on the EEOC’s charge “would be inconsistent with the very nature of a pattern or practice violation.” Mitsubishi, 990 F. Supp. at 1085.
Moreover, § 2000e-5(e) indicates that the statutory limitation applies specifically to charges “filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). But unlike claims brought under § 2000e-5, EEOC actions under § 2000e-6 are not brought on behalf of individual victims, but on the EEOC’s own initiative for the purpose of rectifying “a
12

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 13 of 26
pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by [Title VII].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(a); Shell Oil, 466 U.S. at 62.
Furthermore, “it is crucial that the [EEOC]’s ability to investigate charges of systemic discrimination not be impaired.” Shell Oil, 466 U.S. at 69. In amending § 2000e-6 to transfer pattern-or-practice suit authority to the EEOC, Congress observed that “[p]attern or practice discrimination is a pervasive and deeply imbedded form of discrimination,” warranting “[u]nrelenting broad-scale action” to achieve the objectives of Title VII. H.R. Rep. No. 92-238 at 14 (1972, reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2137, 2149. Accordingly, § 2000e-5(e) will not be applied to exclude the EEOC’s claims for male applicants rejected prior to the charge-filing deadline. E. The EEOC’s Retaliation Claim
LAWL contends that the retaliation claim brought by the EEOC for Koch under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) is mooted by Koch’s settlement agreement and voluntary dismissal.
“When the EEOC acts, albeit at the behest of and for the benefit of specific individuals, it acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 446 U.S. 318, 326 (1980). Thus, “the EEOC is not merely a proxy for the
13

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 14 of 26
victims of discrimination and . . . [its] enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions.” Id. Accordingly, the EEOC is “the master of its own case,” and “has the authority to pursue victim-specific relief regardless of the forum that the employer and employee have chosen to resolve their disputes.” E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 292, 295 (2002). Simply put, Koch cannot limit the EEOC’s authority to enforce Title VII by waiving the EEOC’s statutory remedies.
The holding in Waffle House was expressly limited to the effect of arbitration agreements on EEOC remedies. Id. at 297. Although the Supreme Court noted that a monetary settlement should at least limit the extent of the EEOC’s monetary recovery for the victim, as “courts can and should preclude double recovery by an individual,” it did not state that a private waiver of rights could completely preclude the EEOC from seeking victim-specific relief Id. at 297. Following the rationale in Waffle House, the Court will permit the EEOC to seek monetary relief for its retaliation claim, and will offset any such award by the monetary relief paid Koch under her settlement agreement with LAWL.3 Senich v. American-Republican, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 40,
3 LAWL contends that Koch’s financial claims, including those for 14

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 15 of 26
45 (D. Conn. 2003); accord E.E.O.C. v. Continental Airlines Inc., No. 04-C-3055, 2006 WL 3505485, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2006).
LAWL also argues that the EEOC is not entitled to injunctive relief under its retaliation claim because there is no evidence that LAWL has retaliated against any employee since Koch’s discharge in 1998, or that it is likely to do so in the future.
The “voluntary discontinuance of challenged activities by a defendant” only makes injunctive relief unnecessary “when there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated,” and the “defendant[] face[s] a heavy burden to establish mootness in such cases.” Lyons Partnership, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 800 (4th Cir. 2001).
The EEOC has produced evidence of another incident of retaliation since Koch’s discharge (Pl.’s Opp’n Ex. 20 at 18-19, Ex. 26 at 249-52), and LAWL fails to meet its heavy burden of establishing mootness, alleging only that future non-compliance with Title VII’s retaliation prohibition is improbable because
punitive damages, have been fully satisfied by the settlement agreement. But because LAWL chooses to keep the terms of the agreement confidential, it fails to show what amount recovered by the EEOC would be a windfall for Koch.
15

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 16 of 26
of its “growing HR Department.” Def.’s Opp’n 30. Accordingly,
LAWL’s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC’s retaliation
claim will be denied, and its motion for partial summary
judgment on the same claim will be denied as moot.
F. Records Preservation
The EEOC claims that LAWL has violated the record-retention
requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and the EEOC’s pursuant
regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. As remedies, the EEOC seeks an
injunction requiring LAWL to comply with the statute and
regulation, and adverse-inference instructions regarding those
records that are unavailable due to LAWL’s failure to comply.
Both parties move for summary judgment.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) provides that:
[e]very employer . . . shall (1) make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, (2) preserve such records for such periods, and (3) make such reports therefrom as the [EEOC] shall prescribe by regulation.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c). Under 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, the EEOC
requires:
[a]ny personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including but not necessarily limited to . . . records having to do with hiring, . . . or termination . . .) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be
16

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 17 of 26
kept for a period of one year from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed . . . against an employer under title VII . . . , the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action. The term “personnel records relevant to the charge,” for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected.
29 C.F.R. § 1602.14.
G. Injunctive Relief
Title VII expressly provides injunctive relief for
violations of § 2000e-8(c) and the EEOC’s pursuant requirements.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) (“If any person required to comply with
the provisions of this subsection fails or refuses to do so, the
. . . district court . . . shall, upon application of the
[EEOC], . . . have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order
requiring him to comply.”).
On January 7, 2005, the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge
Grimm’s June 30, 2004 Order granting in part then plaintiff-
intervenor Koch’s motion for discovery-abuse sanctions under
Rule 37. Papers No. 106, 126. Judge Grimm found that LAWL had
failed to retain documents that were “incredibly relevant” to
Koch’s retaliation claim, and recommended an adverse-inference
instruction to the Court. Pl.’s Mem. App. A. Ex. 1 at 43 (June 17

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 18 of 26
29, 2004 Mot. Hr’g Tr.). Although LAWL argues that the facts concerning its
preservation of employment records relevant to the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim are in dispute, it does not challenge the Court’s factual finding that it breached its duty under Title VII to preserve all documents and materials relevant to Koch’s retaliation claim. LAWL relies instead on its contention that the EEOC’s retaliation claim was mooted by Koch’s settlement agreement, and thus its obligation to retain documents related to Koch’s claim terminated with her settlement.
The EEOC’s retaliation claim, however, is not moot, and LAWL’s failure to abide by Title VII’s retention policy with respect to that claim remains undisputed. Accordingly, the Court will grant the requested injunctive relief and order LAWL to comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. H. Adverse Inference Instructions
LAWL argues that the EEOC’s motion for adverse inference instructions is procedurally improper because the EEOC never moved for an order to compel discovery of the allegedly despoiled documents or for sanctions under Rule 37. Thus, LAWL contends, the EEOC’s circumnavigation of discovery procedures
18

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 19 of 26
makes its appeal to the Court’s inherent powers unjustified. The EEOC argues that its Amended Complaint expressly requests adverse-inference instructions as relief from LAWL’s Title-VIIrecord-keeping violation, and granting such relief is in the Court’s inherent power to remedy spoliation of evidence.
“The right to impose sanctions for spoliation arises from a court’s inherent power to control the judicial process and litigation, but the power is limited to that necessary to redress conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). In choosing an appropriate sanction for spoliation, “the trial court has discretion to pursue a wide range of responses both for the purpose of leveling the evidentiary playing field and for the purpose of sanctioning the improper conduct.” Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 1995).
If spoliation has occurred, a court may impose an adverseinference instruction pursuant to its inherent authority, but such an extreme sanction is not to be given lightly. See Thompson v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 219 F.R.D. 93, 100-01 (D. Md. 2003) (considering adverse-inference instructions as sanctions for violating discovery orders). As the Court explained:
19

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 20 of 26
In practice, an adverse inference instruction often ends the litigation--it is too difficult a hurdle for the spoliator to overcome. The in terrorem effect of an adverse inference is obvious. When a jury is instructed that it may infer that the party who destroyed potentially relevant evidence did so out of a realization that the evidence was unfavorable, the party suffering this instruction will be hard-pressed to prevail on the merits.
Id. Thus, to warrant an adverse-inference instruction, the
movant must show that:
(1) the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or altered;
(2) the destruction or loss was accompanied by a culpable state of mind; and
(3) the evidence that was destroyed or altered was relevant to the claims or defenses of the party that sought the discovery of the spoliated evidence, to the extent that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the lost evidence would have supported the claims or defenses of the party that sought it.
Id. at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted). Three states of
mind satisfy the culpability requirement: bad faith or knowing
destruction, gross negligence, and ordinary negligence, with the
more culpable state of mind lessening the burden of showing
relevance. Id. “When evidence is destroyed in bad faith (i.e.
intentionally or willfully), that fact alone is sufficient to
demonstrate relevance.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
As to whether an adverse-inference instructions are
appropriate remedies for violations of Title VII’s document-
retention requirements, there is no Fourth Circuit law directly
20

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 21 of 26
on point, but other circuits provide some guidance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a refusal to give such an adverse-inference instruction, holding that, “absent bad faith, a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 . . . would not automatically trigger an adverse inference.” Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606, 615 (7th Cir. 2002). The Second Circuit approved an adverseinference instruction for an employer’s complete failure to retain an employee’s performance records in Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376, 383-84 (2nd Cir. 2001). In Zimmermann, the court held that:
where, as here, the employer was required by law to retain the employee’s records, bad faith that might otherwise be required, need not be shown to permit an adverse inference; intentional destruction satisfies the mens rea requirement. The only other requirement is that the party seeking the inference show that the destroyed records were relevant to the party’s claim or defense. Id. (internal citations omitted). I. Retaliation Evidence The Court has already affirmed Magistrate Judge Grimm’s recommendation of an adverse-inference instruction for LAWL’s failure to maintain documents relative to Koch’s retaliation claim. Papers No. 106, 126; Pl.’s Mem. App. A. Ex. 1 at 43. As the undisputed facts warranting redress of LAWL’s spoliation of evidence relevant to the EEOC’s retaliation claim are identical to those of Koch’s, it follows that an adverse-inference
21

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 22 of 26
instruction is equally appropriate. Accordingly, the Court will provide an adverse-inference instruction to the jury with respect to the EEOC’s retaliation claim. J. Pattern-or-Practice Evidence
The facts material to LAWL’s alleged spoliation of records relevant to the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim, however, are in dispute. The parties disagree on when LAWL’s obligation to preserve documents relative to the pattern-or-practice claim commenced. Section § 1602.14 specifies that “[w]here a charge of discrimination has been filed . . . against an employer under title VII . . . , the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action.” 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14. The EEOC argues that LAWL was put on notice of a potential pattern-or-practice claim as early as July 1998, when LAWL received a copy of Koch’s retaliation charge. LAWL contends that it did not anticipate litigation concerning the pattern-orpractice claim until it received the EEOC’s September 14, 2000 determination letter.
Koch’s amended retaliation charge states that she was terminated “because [she] complained . . . about [LAWL’s] failure to hire qualified male applicants.” Def.’s Mem. Ex. XX. Although Koch’s charge demonstrates that she opposed a
22

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 23 of 26
discriminatory hiring practice, it does not indicate whether the offending conduct was localized or part of a company-wide policy, thus it is insufficient notice of a pattern-or-practice claim. However, LAWL received notice of the scope of Koch’s sex-discrimination allegation prior to receipt of the EEOC’s determination letter. On May 10, 2000, the EEOC provided LAWL’s attorneys a request for “additional documentation” relevant to “the underlying allegations of [LAWL’s] hiring practices.” Def.’s Opp’n Ex. H. The May 10, 2000 letter specifically requested “copies of all applications and/or resumes, applicant logs, lead/response tracking sheets and any interview notes pertaining to counselor vacancies occurring during the period of January 1995 to the present,” as well as “a list of all hires . . . hired by [LAWL]” during the same period. Id. Accordingly, LAWL was on notice of its statutory duty to preserve documents relative to the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim when it received the EEOC’s May 10, 2000 request.
Although the temporal extent of LAWL’s obligation is resolved, the facts material to LAWL’s state of mind and what evidence has actually been despoiled remain disputed. For example, the EEOC alleges that in early 2002, LAWL failed to instruct its payroll administrator to preserve the payroll data of former employees in its payroll system; but LAWL shows that
23

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 24 of 26
the employee data are still available in an alternative format. Def.’s Opp’n Ex. O at 171-72; Ex. KK at 250-51. The EEOC alleges that it has been unable to locate an application or resume in at least 52% of the electronic personnel files produced by LAWL,; however it admits that it has not had time to review all of the applications and resumes produced by LAWL. Pl.’s Mem. 8 n.1. The EEOC further alleges that LAWL either destroyed or failed to keep the applications and resumes of persons whom it did not hire. But the EEOC’s evidence of employees destroying applicant resumes or applications is only anecdotal, and falls short of proving a company policy of destroying applicant records. Further, LAWL produces evidence demonstrating that it has maintained a policy of retaining documents, resumes, and interview notes since 1999 (Def.’s Opp’n Ex. P at 44-45, 57-58. (Karen Siegel Dep.)), and has attempted to make applicant data from internet job-posting services available to the EEOC (Def.’s Opp’n Exs. AA, BB).
In sum, there are too many disputed facts material to the EEOC’s claim of despoiled pattern-or practice evidence to warrant summary judgment. Accordingly, the EEOC’s motion for adverse-inference instructions with respect to its pattern-orpractice claim will be denied; and, as the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment will otherwise be granted, LAWL’s
24

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 25 of 26
motion for summary judgment with respect to the EEOC’s documentpreservation claims will be denied. IV. Motions for Leave to File Surreplies
“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, surreply memoranda are not permitted to be filed.” D. Md. R. 105(2)(a).
The EEOC’s proposed surreply responds to LAWL’s use of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S.Ct. 2162 (2007) in its Reply to support its statute of limitations argument. LAWL’s proposed surreply challenges evidence cited in the EEOC’s Reply that LAWL contends was undisclosed and is inadmissible.
As the parties’ proposed surreplies respond to case law and evidence that were not relied upon by the Court in its determinations, their arguments are irrelevant. Accordingly, the parties’ motions for leave to file surreplies will be denied. V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above: (1) LAWL’s motion for summary judgment will be denied; (2) LAWL’s motion for partial summary judgment will be denied as moot; (3) the EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part: LAWL will be ordered to comply with the document retention requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, and an adverse-inference instruction will be given with respect
25

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 198 Filed 08/31/07 Page 26 of 26
to the EEOC’s retaliation claim, but not with respect to its pattern-or-practice claim; and (4) the parties’ motions for leave to file surreplies will be denied.

8/31/07 Date

/s/ William D. Quarles, Jr. United States District Judge

26

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 199 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, NORTHERN DIVISION

*

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

* CIVIL NO.: WDQ-02-0648

LA WEIGHT LOSS,

*

Defendant.

*

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

ORDER

For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum

Opinion, it is, this 31st day of August, 2007, ORDERED that:

1. The Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Paper No. 177)

BE, and HEREBY IS, DENIED;

2. The Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Paper

No. 178) BE, and HEREBY IS, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART;

3. The Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (Paper

No. 183) BE, and HEREBY IS, DENIED as MOOT;

4. The Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Paper

No. 194) BE, and HEREBY IS, DENIED;

5. The Defendant’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Paper

No. 195) BE, and HEREBY IS, DENIED; and

1

Case 1:02-cv-00648-WDQ Document 199 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 2 6. The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties. /s/
William D. Quarles, Jr. United States District Judge
2

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 1 of 22
CASREF,CLOSED
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−00648−WDQ

EEOC v. LA Weight Loss

Date Filed: 02/28/2002

Assigned to: Judge William D Quarles, Jr

Date Terminated: 12/03/2008

Demand: $0

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Case in other court: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 04−01814 Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109622817 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth M Golski Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 200 Granby St Ste 739 Norfolk, VA 23510 7574413505 Fax: 17574416720 TERMINATED: 06/28/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L Phillips US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092737 Fax: 14109624270 Email: ronald.phillips@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Suzanne Lenahan Nyfeler Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 830 E Main St Ste 600 Richmond, VA 23219 8047712215

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 2 of 22
Fax: 18047712222 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tracy Hudson Spicer Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Washington Field Office 131 M St Nbr 4NW02F Washington, DC 20507 12024190711 Fax: 12024190739 Email: tracy.spicer@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cecile Celeste Quinlan Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109624270 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corbett L Anderson US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Washington Field Office 1801 L St NW Ste 100 Washington, DC 20507 12024190724 Fax: 12024190701 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Jean Clickner Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Pittsburgh Area Office 1001 Liberty Ave Ste 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 14126446439 Fax: 14126444935 Email: jean.clickner@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela Elizabeth Hostetler Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 4109624260 Fax: 4109624270
Stephen P O Rourke US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109624270

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 3 of 22

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Kathy C. Koch
V. Defendant LA Weight Loss

represented by Kelly Culp Lovett Anne Arundel County Office of Law 2660 Riva Road, 4th Floor Annapolis, MD 21401 14102227888 Fax: 14102227835 Email: klovett@aacounty.org TERMINATED: 01/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela J White Circuit Court for Baltimore City 111 N Calvert St Baltimore, MD 21202 14103965056 Fax: 14105457310 TERMINATED: 03/13/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carla Napier Murphy Duane Morris LLP 100 International Drive Suite 700 Baltimore, MD 21202−5184 14109492935 Fax: 1410949−2980 Email: cnmurphy@duanemorris.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth Torphy Donzella Shawe and Rosenthal LLP 20 S Charles St 11th Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14107521040 Fax: 14107528861 Email: etd@shawe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Henry McDonough Wolf Block Schorr and Solis Cohen LLP 1650 Arch St 22nd Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 12159772724 Fax: 12154052724 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aliza Rebecca Karetnick Wolf Block Schorr and Solis−Cohen LLP 1650 Arch St 22nd Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 12159772124 Fax: 12154053724 Email: akaretnick@wolfblock.com

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 4 of 22
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bruce S Harrison Shawe and Rosenthal LLP One South Street, Suite 1800 Baltimore, MD 21202 14107521040 Fax: 14107528861 Email: harrison@shawe.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Gollin Wolf Block Schorr and Solis Cohen LLP 1650 Arch St 22nd Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 12159772000 Fax: 12154053935 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E Landau Wolf Block Schorr and Solis−Cohen LLP 1650 Arch St 22nd Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 12159772000 Fax: 12154052952 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan David Wetchler Duane Morris LLP 30 S 17th St Philadelphia, PA 19103 12159791886 Fax: 12156894937 Email: jwetchler@duanemorris.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry H Spector Wolf Block Schorr and Solis Cohen LLP 1659 Arch St 22nd Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103−2097 12159772049 Fax: 12154052949 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant LA Weight Loss

represented by Elizabeth Torphy Donzella (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas Henry McDonough (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Gollin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E Landau

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 5 of 22

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

Intervenor Defendant LA Weight Loss

represented by Elizabeth Torphy Donzella (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Henry McDonough (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Gollin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Trustee
Arthur P Liebersohn Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Pure Weight Loss, Inc. formerly known as L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc.

represented by Bruce S Harrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Hemmendinger Shawe and Rosenthal LLP One South Street Suite 1800 Baltimore, MD 21202 14107521040 Fax: 14107528861 Email: eh@shawe.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Kathy C. Koch

represented by Kelly Culp Lovett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/13/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela J White (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carla Napier Murphy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/28/2002 02/28/2002

# Docket Text 1 COMPLAINT filed; (ljs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002) 1 DEMAND for jury trial by EEOC (ljs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 6 of 22

02/28/2002 03/25/2002

2 SUMMONS (20 days) issued for LA Weight Loss (ljs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to LA Weight Loss 3/15/02 Answer due on 4/4/02 for LA Weight Loss (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2002)

04/08/2002

4 ANSWER to Complaint by LA Weight Loss (Attorney Elizabeth Torphy−Donzella) (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2002)

04/10/2002

5 SCHEDULING ORDER ( signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 4/9/02) (c/m 4/10/02 skp) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2002)

04/19/2002 04/19/2002 04/30/2002 05/14/2002

6 JOINT LETTER/MOTION by EEOC, LA Weight Loss to Amend [5−1] Scheduling Order (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 04/19/2002 (Entered: 04/19/2002)
6 ORDER granting [6−1] Joint Letter/Motion to Amend [5−1] Scheduling Order (signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 4/19/02) (c/m 4/19/02 neg) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/19/2002)
7 STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING limitations on discovery ( signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 4/30/02) (c/m 4/30/02 neg) (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
8 MOTION by LA Weight Loss for David L Gollin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)

05/14/2002

8 ORDER granting [8−1] Motion of LA Weight Loss for David L Gollin to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Fee paid. (signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 5/14/02) (c/i 5/14/02 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)

05/14/2002 05/14/2002 06/27/2002 07/12/2002 07/15/2002

9 MOTION by LA Weight Loss for David E. Landau to Appear Pro Hac Vice (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
9 ORDER granting [9−1] Motion of LA Weight Loss for David E. Landau to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 5/14/02) (c/i 5/14/02 ms) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/14/2002)
10 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Kathy C. Koch with proposed Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff and Prayer for Jury Trial (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
11 RESPONSE by LA Weight Loss to [10−1] motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Kathy C. Koch (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
12 ORDER GRANTING as unopposedi [10−1] Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Kathy C. Koch ( signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 7/15/02) (c/m 7/15/02 skp) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/2002)

07/15/2002 13 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Kathy C. Koch against LA Weight Loss and Prayer for Jury Trial (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/2002)

08/05/2002 08/05/2002 08/22/2002 08/23/2002 08/23/2002

14 ANSWER by LA Weight Loss to [13−1] Intervenor Complaint (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
15 MOTION with memorandum in support by LA Weight Loss to Dismiss Counts I and III of the Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff Kathy Koch with Attachment 1 (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
16 NOTICE of attorney appearance for EEOC by Tracy Hudson Spicer and withdrawing the appearance of Stephen P. O'Rourke, Pamela E. Hostetler and Richard J. Mrizek. (c/s) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
17 MOTION by EEOC for Suzanne Lenahan Nyfeler to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
17 ORDER granting [17−1] motion of Plaintiff for Suzanne Lenahan Nyfeler to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (signed by Clerk) (c/i 8/23/02) (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 7 of 22

08/23/2002 08/23/2002

18 MOTION by EEOC for Kenneth M Golski to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
18 ORDER granting [18−1] motion for Kenneth M Golski to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (signed by Clerk 8/23/02) (c/i 8/23/02) (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

08/23/2002 19 MOTION by EEOC for Ronald L Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice . (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

08/23/2002 19 ORDER granting [19−1] motion for Ronald L Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (signed by Clerk 8/23/02) (c/i 8/23/02) (das, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

08/26/2002 08/26/2002 09/11/2002 09/12/2002

20 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Amend Intervenor's Complaint and "APPROVAL." (signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 8/26/02) (c/m 8/26/02 skp) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
21 INTERVENOR'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Kathy C. Koch against LA Weight Loss (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/26/2002)
22 ORDER mooting [15−1] Motion of Defendant to Dismiss Counts I and III of the Complaint of Intervenor/Plaintiff Kathy Koch (signed Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 9/11/02) (c/m 9/11/02 neg) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
23 ANSWER by LA Weight Loss to First Amended Complaint (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2002)

10/16/2002

24 ORDER REQUESTING Counsel to confer and submit a Proposed Joint Schedule to govern the course of future proceedings in this case. (signed by Chief Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 10/16/02) (c/m 10/16/02 skp) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/16/2002)

02/26/2003 02/26/2003 03/18/2003 03/18/2003 03/19/2003

25 JOINT MOTION by EEOC, LA Weight Loss to Extend Discovery Deadline , and to Amend [5−1] Scheduling Order (c/s) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
25 ORDER granting [25−1] Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline and granting [25−2] Joint Motion to Amend [5−1] Scheduling Order ( signed by Judge Frederic N. Smalkin 2/26/03) (c/m 2/26/03 neg) (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/2003)
26 STIPULATION Governing Production of Certain Discovery Materials to be Designated as Lawyers Only by Kathy C. Koch. (Hoelzer, Kelly) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kathy C. Koch re 26 Stipulation Governing Production of Certain Discovery Materials to be Designated as Lawyers Only (Hoelzer, Kelly) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
28 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING Stipulation Governing Production of Certain Discovery Materials to be Designated as Lawyers Only re 26 Stipulation filed by Kathy C. Koch. Signed by Judge Frederic N. Smalkin on 03/19/2003. (Smalkin, Frederic) (Entered: 03/19/2003)

03/26/2003

29 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Subpoena for Medical Records of Kathy Koch served on Lawrence R. Hyman, M.D. on March 26, 2003, filed by LA Weight Loss. (Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/26/2003)

03/28/2003 04/01/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 08/14/2003

30 Correspondence re: REASSIGNMENT of Case from Judge Smalkin to Judge Quarles (mms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
Case reassigned to Judge William D Quarles. Judge Frederic N. Smalkin no longer assigned to the case. (cag, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/10/2003)
31 NOTICE by Kathy C. Koch of Withdrawal of Appearance of Kelly C. Hoelzer (Hoelzer, Kelly) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kathy C. Koch re 31 Notice (Other) of Withdrawal of Appearance (Hoelzer, Kelly) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
33 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel# 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 08/14/2003)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 8 of 22

09/12/2003 09/12/2003

34 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by LA Weight Loss re 33 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery (Attachments: # 1 Oppostion To Motion To Compel# 2 Appendix # 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Errata J# 13 Exhibit K)(Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
35 MOTION for Protective Order by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 9/29/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Memo In Support# 2 Appendix # 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit J# 13 Exhibit K# 14 Exhibit L# 15 Exhibit M# 16)(Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/12/2003)

09/16/2003

36 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Kathy C. Koch (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Answers# 2 Attachment 1 to Motion to Compel# 3 Attachment 2 to Motion to Compel# 4 Attachment 3 to Motion to Compel# 5 Attachment 4 to Motion to Compel# 6 Attachment 5 to Motion to Compel# 7 Attachment 6 to Motion to Compel# 8 Attachment 7 to Motion to Compel# 9 Attachment 8 to Motion to Compel# 10 Attachment 9 to Motion to Compel# 11 Attachment 10 to Motion to Compel# 12 Attachment 11 to Motion to Compel# 13 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Answers# 14 Exhibit A to Memorandum in Support# 15 Exhibit B to Memorandum in Support# 16 Exhibit C to Memorandum in Support# 17 Exhibit D to Memorandum in Support# 18 Exhibit E to Memorandum in Support# 19 Exhibit F to Memorandum in Support# 20 Exhibit G to Memorandum in Support# 21 Exhibit H to Memorandum in Support# 22 Exhibit I to Memorandum in Support)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

09/16/2003 37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kathy C. Koch re 36 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery,,,, (White, Pamela) (Entered: 09/16/2003)

10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/07/2003 10/07/2003

38 MOTION to Withdraw 35 MOTION for Protective Order With Order by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 10/20/2003 (Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
39 STIPULATION Confidentiality and Order by LA Weight Loss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
40 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 38 Defendant's Motion to Withdraw 35 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on October 7, 2003. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
41 Paperless ORDER granting 39 confidentiality Stipulation filed by LA Weight Loss. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on October 7, 2003. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

11/13/2003

42 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by LA Weight Loss re 36 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery,,,,, 37 Certificate of Service Response to Intervenor/Plaintiff Kathy Koch's Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Cover Page to Motion to Compel# 2 Table of Contents# 3 Opposition to Intervenor/Plaintiff Kathy Koch's Motion to Compel# 4 Appendix # 5 Notice of Lengthy Filing of Exhibits# 6 Exhibit A# 7 Exhibit B# 8 Exhibit C# 9 Exhibit D# 10 Exhibit F# 11 Exhibit G# 12 Exhibit H# 13 Exhibit I# 14 Exhibit L# 15 Exhibit M# 16 Exhibit O# 17 Exhibit Q# 18 Exhibit R# 19 Exhibit S# 20 Exhibit T# 21 Exhibit U# 22 Exhibit V# 23 Exhibit W# 24 Exhibit X# 25 Exhibit Y# 26 Exhibit AA# 27 Exhibit BB# 28 Exhibit CC# 29 Exhibit DD# 30 Exhibit FF# 31 Exhibit GG# 32 Exhibit EE)(Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

11/14/2003 43 MOTION for Corbett Anderson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

11/14/2003 12/10/2003

44 MARGINAL ORDER granting 43 Motion for Corbett Anderson to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Document #44 see #43 Signed by Clerk on 11/14/03. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
45 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 12/29/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint# 2 Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand# 3 Amended Complaint and Jury Trial

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 9 of 22

12/10/2003 12/15/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/23/2003 12/29/2003 01/13/2004 01/20/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/04/2004 02/20/2004 02/25/2004 02/25/2004

Demand (Local Rule 103(6)(c) copy))(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
46 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 12/29/2003 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery# 2 Proposed Order Regarding Bifurcation and Scheduling)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
47 Paperless ORDER. Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have e−filed document number 45 which, with attachments, exceeds 15 pages in length. Counsel have not submitted a paper copy of that document as required by the court's CM/ECF instructions. Counsel are directed to do so immediately by mailing or hand−delivering to chambers a paper copy of the document, together with a notice that the document has been e−filed.. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 12/15/2003. (kab, Chambers) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 46 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery filed by Plaintiff EEOC by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 1/3/2004 (Gollin, David) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
49 Paperless ORDER granting 48 unopposed Motion for Extension of Time until January 20, 2004 to File Response re 46 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery Responses due by 1/20/2004 Replies due by 2/3/2004.. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on December 17, 2003. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
50 RESPONSE to Motion re 46 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery filed by Kathy C. Koch. Replies due by 1/6/2004. (White, Pamela) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
51 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 1/15/2004 (Attachments: # 1 proposed Order Regarding Joint Motion to Extend Discovery)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 12/29/2003)
52 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Kathy C. Koch re 42 Notice of service of response to motion to compel discovery,,, (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Service of Reply to Response to Motion to Compel Discovery)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
53 MOTION Pre−Trial Conference by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 2/6/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Text of Proposed Order # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
54 RESPONSE re 53 MOTION Pre−Trial Conference filed by Kathy C. Koch, Kathy C. Koch. (White, Pamela) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
55 REPLY to Response to Motion re 53 MOTION Pre−Trial Conference, 46 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Certificate of Service)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
56 ORDER granting 51 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 1/13/04. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
57 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Pre−Trial Conference and Regarding EEOC Motion to Bifurcate by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 3/8/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
58 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Kathy C. Koch. Responses due by 3/15/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Local Rule 104.7 Certificate)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
59 RESPONSE in Opposition re 57 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Pre−Trial Conference and Regarding EEOC Motion to Bifurcate or, in the alternative, Motion to File Memorandum in Rebuttal to Defendant's Sur−Reply Brief filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 3/10/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Rebuttal to Defendant's Sur−Reply Brief Regarding Motion to Bifurcate# 2 proposed Order)(Phillips, Ronald)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 10 of 22

03/10/2004
03/16/2004 03/22/2004
03/24/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004
03/24/2004 03/24/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004 04/09/2004 04/09/2004 04/12/2004 04/12/2004

(Entered: 02/25/2004)
60 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Second Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents# 2 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Second Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents# 3 Exhibit #1 to Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Second Motion to Compel)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
61 MEMORANDUM to Counsel RE: Scheduling date for motions hearing. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/16/04. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
62 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 34 Notice of service of response to motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Reply to Defendant's Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents (First Set)# 2 Exhibit #1# 3 Exhibit #2)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
Hearing on all pending Motions held before J. Quarles (Reporter: Paul Mackaro). (rhl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
63 MARGINAL ORDER granting 57 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in support of motion for pre−trial conference and regarding EEOC motion to bifurcate. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/24/04. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
64 REPLY BRIEF in Support re 53 MOTION Pre−Trial Conference and regarding EEOC motion to bifurcate filed by LA Weight Loss. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
65 ORDER granting 45 Unopposed Motion of plaintiff for Leave to File amended complaint, granting 46 Motion of plaintiff to Bifurcate trial and discovery, granting joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery, granting 53 Motion of defendant for pre−trial conference, referring Koch's motion to compel discovery to a Magistrate Judge for disposition. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/24/04. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
66 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Red line amended complaint)(jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
67 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for Discovery. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/24/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
68 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File (Landau, David) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
69 Paperless ORDER granting 68 Request for Extension of Time until April 12, 2004 to File agreed upon scheduling order. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on April 6, 2004. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
70 LETTER ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion of Plaintiff to Compel. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/6/04. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1; # 2 Attachment (2) (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/07/2004)
71 CERTIFICATE of Counsel by David E Landau on behalf of LA Weight Loss (Landau, David) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
72 Correspondence re: Certification (Landau, David) (Entered: 04/09/2004)
73 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Filing of Order Regarding Bifurcation and Scheduling (Attachments: # 1 proposed Order Regarding Bifurcation and Scheduling)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
74 Defendant's Objections to Proposed Scheduling Order Filed by the EEOC on April 12, 2004 Regarding Bifurcation by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 4/29/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibit H)(Gollin, David) Modified on 4/13/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk).

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 11 of 22

04/16/2004 04/19/2004
04/19/2004
04/20/2004
04/20/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/26/2004
04/29/2004
05/07/2004
05/11/2004
05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/25/2004 05/25/2004

Additional attachment(s) added on 4/23/2004 − Replacing previously filed Exhibit C) (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/12/2004)
75 MOTION to Strike Exhibits by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/3/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1# 2 proposed Order Regarding Motion to Strike Exhibits)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
76 NOTICE by Kathy C. Koch re 70 Order on Motion to Compel For Costs and Attorneys' Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Pamela J. White with Exhibit A − Resume of Pamela J. White and Exhibit B − Billing information)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
77 Response to Magistrate Judge's Order of April 6, 2004 Regarding Plaintiff Intervenor Kathy Koch's Motion to Compel filed by LA Weight Loss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Landau, David) Modified on 4/21/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/19/2004)
78 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of filing of Rebuttal to Defendant's Memorandum Setting Forth Objections to Proposed Scheduling Order (Document Number #74) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
79 RESPONSE re 77 Memorandum to Objections of Defendant LA Weight Loss to Proposed Scheduling Order filed by Kathy C. Koch. (White, Pamela) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
80 Correcting Earlier Submission (Torphy−Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
81 ORDER GRANTING 80 Request to Correct an Earlier Submission filed by LA Weight Loss. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 4/23/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
82 RESPONSE in Opposition To The Statement of Kathy C. Koch for Costs and Attorneys' Fees filed by LA Weight Loss. Replies due by 5/10/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hayes v. Mazda Motor Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20002 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2000))(Gollin, David) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
83 REPLY to 82 Response in Opposition to Motion, 76 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Reply in Support of Statement of Kathy C. Koch for Costs and Attorneys' Fees filed by Kathy C. Koch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(White, Pamela) Modified on 4/30/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 04/29/2004)
84 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 75 MOTION to Strike Exhibits by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 5/24/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant;s Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Strike# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Gollin, David) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
85 Paperless ORDER granting 84 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, attached as Exhibit A to Paper #84, is deemed timely filed. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on May 11, 2004. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
86 REPLY to Response to Motion re 75 MOTION to Strike Exhibits filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
87 MOTION of Jonathan D. Wetchler to Appear Pro Hac Vice by LA Weight Loss. (Filed in Clerk's Office on 12/18/04) (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
88 MARGINAL ORDER granting 87 Motion of LA Weight Loss for Jonathan D. Wetchler to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #1204129 − for Document #88 see #87). Signed by Clerk on 5/20/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
89 ORDER Regarding Bifurcation and Scheduling. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 5/25/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
90 MARGINAL ORDER denying 75 Motion of Plaintiff to Strike Exhibits. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 5/25/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/25/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 12 of 22

05/27/2004 05/27/2004

91 MOTION of Larry H. Spector to Appear Pro Hac Vice by LA Weight Loss. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/24/04) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
92 MARGINAL ORDER granting 91 Motion of Defendant for Larry H. Spector to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Fee paid Receipt #1204232 − for Document #92 see #91). Signed by Clerk on 5/26/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk)(FILED IN CLERK'S OFC. ON 5/26/04) (Entered: 05/27/2004)

06/04/2004

93 LETTER ORDER. Defendant ordered to pay reasonable fees and expenses as therein set forth within 30 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/4/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2004)

06/07/2004

94 MOTION for Sanctions by Kathy C. Koch. Responses due by 6/24/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Sanctions# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Notice of Lengthy Exhibit B and E# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 06/07/2004)

06/08/2004 06/09/2004 06/21/2004
06/23/2004

95 LETTER ORDER re: Motion for Sanctions − Paper No. 94. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/8/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
96 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by LA Weight Loss.(Gollin, David) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
97 RESPONSE in Opposition to Intervenor/Plaintiff Kathy C. Koch's Motion for Sanctions filed by LA Weight Loss. Replies due by 7/6/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − March 8, 1998 Letter# 2 Exhibit B − Portlock Deposition# 3 Exhibit C − Koch Deposition# 4 Exhibit D − Siegel Affidavit# 5 Exhibit E − April 21, 1998 Letter# 6 Exhibit F − O'Brien Deposition# 7 Exhibit G − Second Supplemental Responses# 8 Exhibit H − Third Supplemental Responses# 9 Exhibit I − Plaintiff's Requests for Production# 10 Exhibit J − Plaintiff's Interrogatories# 11 Exhibit K − Privilege Log)(Gollin, David) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
98 PAPERLESS ORDER: Plaintiff/Intervenor Koch's reply to Defendant's response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, due Monday, June 28, 2004, will be filed no later than noon. A hearing then will be held via telephone on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 at 4 p.m., at which time the Court will issue its ruling. Plaintiff Koch will make arrangements for a court reporter, and initiate the conference call for the hearing. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/23/04. (Grimm, Paul)(jgb) (Entered: 06/23/2004)

06/24/2004 99 NOTICE OF APPEAL by LA Weight Loss. Filing fee $ 255. Appeal Record due by 7/26/2004. (Gollin, David) (Entered: 06/24/2004)

06/25/2004 06/28/2004 06/28/2004
06/28/2004 06/29/2004

USCA Appeal Fees received $ 255 receipt number 1204941 re 99 Notice of Appeal filed by LA Weight Loss (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 99 Notice of Appeal (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
100 RESPONSE in Support re 94 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Kathy C. Koch, Kathy C. Koch. Replies due by 7/12/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
101 Second NOTICE to Substitute Attorney (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
Telephone Conference held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

06/30/2004 102 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion of Kathy Koch for Sanctions as therein set forth. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/30/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/01/2004)

07/01/2004

103 ORDER "DIRECTING" that the Interlocutory Notice of Appeal received 6/24/04 and any transcripts which may be ordered for the purposes of appeal are excepted from this Order and will be transmitted to the USCA together with a copy of this Order, the docket entries and copies of such pleadings as the parties may designate, such copies to furnished by the parties within two weeks of the date of this order.. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 6/30/04. (sls, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/1/2004 (sls, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 07/01/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 13 of 22

07/08/2004 07/08/2004

104 NOTICE of Appearance by Carla N Bailey on behalf of Kathy C. Koch, Kathy C. Koch (Bailey, Carla) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
105 MOTION for Aliza R. Karetnick to Appear Pro Hac Vice by LA Weight Loss. (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

07/08/2004

106 MARGINAL ORDER granting 105 Motion of Defendant for Aliza R. Karetnick to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Clerk on 7/8/04. (FEE PAID RECEIPT #1205123) (FOR PLEADING #106 SEE PLEADING #105) (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

07/08/2004 107 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 3/24/04 before Judge Quarles, re 99 Notice of Appeal Court Reporter: Paul Mackaro. (Filed Separately) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2004)

07/13/2004 07/13/2004 07/14/2004 07/15/2004

108 MOTION of M. Jean Clickner to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
109 MARGINAL ORDER granting 108 Motion of Plaintiff for M. Jean Clickner to Appear Pro Hac Vice (for Document #109 see #108). Signed by Clerk on 7/13/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
110 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for proceedings held on 3/24/04 before Judge Quarles, re 99 Notice of Appeal Transcript due by 9/10/2004. (sls, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/29/2004 (sls, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 07/14/2004)
111 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by LA Weight Loss re 99 Notice of Appeal(Designation Filed Separately) (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) Modified on 7/15/2004 (sls, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 07/15/2004)

07/19/2004

112 MOTION for Other Relief Objections to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of June 24, 2004, On Plaintiff Intervenor's Motion for Sanctions by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 8/5/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Objections# 2 Exhibit Recommendation Transcript# 3 Exhibit Notice of Lengthy Filing# 4 Exhibit Notice of Lengthy Filing# 5 Exhibit Trainee Evaluations of Koch# 6 Exhibit Warning Notice# 7 Exhibit March 8, 1998 Letter)(Gollin, David) (Entered: 07/19/2004)

07/20/2004 07/23/2004 08/02/2004
08/12/2004
08/13/2004

USCA Case Number 04−1814 for 99 Notice of Appeal filed by LA Weight Loss. (Case Manager − Cd Ida) (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
113 Certificate of Clerk certifying the record is complete for appeal purposes re: 99 Notice of Appeal (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
114 Memorandum re 112 MOTION for Other Relief Objections to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of June 24, 2004, On Plaintiff Intervenor's Motion for Sanctions filed by Kathy C. Koch. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing of Lengthy Exhibits A, B and D# 2 Exhibit C)(White, Pamela) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
115 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Memorandum of Intervenor Plaintiff Koch Opposing Objections of LA Weight Loss to Findings and Recommendation by Judge Grimm on June 29, 2004 by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 8/30/2004 (Gollin, David) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
116 Paperless ORDER granting 115 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendant has until 8/30/04 to file a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Objections to Findings and Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 8/13/2004. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 08/13/2004)

08/16/2004 117 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to LA Weight Loss re: 99 Notice of Appeal (sls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2004)

08/30/2004 10/01/2004

118 REPLY to Response to Motion re 112 MOTION for Other Relief Objections to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of June 24, 2004, On Plaintiff Intervenor's Motion for Sanctions filed by LA Weight Loss. (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
119 Correspondence re: Settlement Conference − requesting (Phillips, Ronald) Modified on 10/4/2004 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 10/01/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 14 of 22

10/04/2004 10/08/2004

120 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for Settlement or other ADR Conference. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 10/4/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
121 ORDER SCHEDULING Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/8/04. (jlb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

10/29/2004 122 Settlement Conference − requesting (Landau, David) (Entered: 10/29/2004)

11/04/2004

123 Paperless ORDER re 122 Settlement Conference − request of Mr. David E. Landau, counsel for defendant, to be able to participate in the settlement only until 5:00 p.m. has been Approved. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/4/04.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 11/04/2004)

12/17/2004 12/20/2004
12/21/2004 01/07/2005

124 MEMORANDUM for Counsel. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/17/04. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
125 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Settlement Conference to begin at 9:00 a.m. on December 21, 2004 instead of 10:00 a.m. Thanking counsel in advance for their anticipated cooperation with this time change. (Grimm, Paul) (jnf) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
Settlement Conference held on 12/21/2004 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
126 ORDER HEREBY AFFIRMING Judge Grimm's Order GRANTING in part, and DENYING in part, the Plaintiff Intervenor's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 1/7/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/07/2005)

01/11/2005

Settlement Conference held on 1/11/2005 held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/12/2005)

02/07/2005 02/08/2005 02/21/2005 02/23/2005 02/24/2005

127 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Modify Schedule by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 2/24/2005 (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
128 MARGINAL ORDER granting 127 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Modify Schedule as therein set forth. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 2/8/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
Settlement Conference held on 2/21/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
129 Paperless Order Requesting that Mr. Bruce Harrison set up a meeting with the Court, Ms. Pamela White and himself, (no clients), upon receipt of this notification. (Grimm, Paul) (jnf) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
130 Request for Conference (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 02/24/2005)

03/11/2005

Settlement Conference held on 3/11/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/23/2005)

04/05/2005 04/07/2005
04/11/2005 04/22/2005 04/26/2005

131 STIPULATION and Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, LA Weight Loss. (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
132 ORDER re 131 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,LA Weight Loss, APPROVED. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/6/05.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 04/07/2005)
Telephone Settlement Conference held on 4/11/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
Telephone Settlement Conference held on 4/22/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
Telephone Settlement Conference held on 4/26/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/28/2005)

06/22/2005 133 PAPERLESS ORDER Scheduling Telephone Conference, regarding status of settlement, for Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. The Court would appreciate

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 15 of 22

06/29/2005 06/29/2005 07/25/2005 07/26/2005 08/25/2005 09/06/2005 10/05/2005
10/18/2005 10/24/2005 10/31/2005
11/02/2005 11/02/2005 11/04/2005
11/29/2005 12/29/2005

Pamela White, counsel for plaintiff, Kathy Koch, initiate the call to counsel and chambers. Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
134 Telephone Settlement Conference held on 6/29/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (FILED IN ERROR) modified on 6/30/2005 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/30/2005)
Telephone Settlement Conference held on 6/29/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
135 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendant by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 8/11/2005 (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
136 ORDER granting 135 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Modify Schedule. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 7/26/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
Telephone Settlement Conference held on 8/25/2005 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
Judge Paul W. Grimm no longer assigned to case. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
137 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Third Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories# 2 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Third Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories# 3 Exhibit 1 to Memorandum in Support# 4 Exhibit 2 to Memorandum in Support# 5 Exhibit 3 to Memorandum in Support)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
138 NOTICE of Service of Response in Opposition to 137 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery by LA Weight Loss (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit A)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) Modified on 10/21/2005 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
139 NOTICE by LA Weight Loss re 137 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, of Service of Response to Third Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's 3rd Motion to Compel)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
140 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 60 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit 1)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
141 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice the admission of Thomas H. McDonough by LA Weight Loss. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
142 MARGINAL ORDER granting 141 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice the admission of Thomas H. McDonough. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 11/2/05. (FOR DOCUMENT #142 SEE DOCUMENT #141) (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
143 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 137 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
144 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 11/29/05. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
145 NOTICE of service of motion to compel discovery by LA Weight Loss (Attachments: # 1 Motion to Compel# 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/29/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 16 of 22

01/21/2006 01/25/2006

146 NOTICE of service of response to motion to compel discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 145 Notice of service of motion to compel discovery (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Document Requests# 2 Exhibit Index# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 01/21/2006)
147 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 2/13/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Anderson, Corbett) (Entered: 01/25/2006)

01/26/2006 148 ORDER granting 147 JOINT Motion to Extend Discovery and Modify Schedule. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 1/26/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2006)

02/20/2006

149 NOTICE of service of reply to response to motion to compel discovery by LA Weight Loss re 146 Notice of service of response to motion to compel discovery, (Attachments: # 1 Reply to EEOC's Opposition to Motion to Compel# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/20/2006)

03/09/2006 03/10/2006 03/10/2006 03/22/2006

150 MOTION to Compel Discovery by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 3/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance with LR 104.7)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
151 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for Discovery. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 03/10/2006. (dms, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
152 RESPONSE to Motion re 150 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 3/24/2006. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
153 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 4/10/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Protective Order# 2 Index of Exhibits# 3 Exhibit #1# 4 Exhibit #2# 5 Exhibit #3# 6 Exhibit #4# 7 Exhibit #5# 8 Exhibit #6)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/22/2006)

03/30/2006 154 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 150 Motion of Defendant to Compel Answers to Interrogatories 32 and 33. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 3/30/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

03/30/2006

Telephone Conference held on 3/30/2006 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

04/11/2006 04/11/2006 04/18/2006 04/21/2006

155 MOTION to Stay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 4/28/2006 (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
156 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING re 155 MOTION to Stay filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, LA Weight Loss Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/11/06. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
157 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/5/2006 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
158 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTED re 157 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/21/06.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 04/21/2006)

06/12/2006

Telephone Settlement Conference held on 6/12/2006 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/27/2006 159 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Modify Schedule by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 7/14/2006 (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/27/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 17 of 22

07/18/2006 08/18/2006

Telephone Conference held on 7/18/2006 before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
160 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING, SUBJECT to further action by Judge Quarles 159 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Modify Schedule filed by LA Weight Loss. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 8/18/06. (Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

09/27/2006

161 PAPERLESS ORDER A telephone hearing to address pending discovery issues will be held today, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 AT 4:30 P.M. Counsel for the Defendant shall initiate the call and arrange for a court reporter. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 09/27/2006. (Grimm, Paul)(kmw) (Entered: 09/27/2006)

09/28/2006 162 Emergency MOTION to Strike EEOC from Submitting Additional Expert Reports after the Time provided by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 10/16/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/28/2006)

09/28/2006
10/02/2006 10/06/2006 10/10/2006

163 RESPONSE to Motion re 162 Emergency MOTION to Strike EEOC from Submitting Additional Expert Reports after the Time provided filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Replies due by 10/12/2006. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
164 LETTER ORDER re: Revised Schedule for Expert Discovery. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/2/06. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
165 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time For Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 10/23/2006 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
166 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 165 Joint Motion for Extension of Time. Pursuant to the joint request of the Parties, the EEOC shall disclose its rebuttal expert report regarding Dr. Jones no later than close of business on WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2006. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/10/2006. (Grimm, Paul)(kmw) Modified on 10/10/2006 (fk, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 10/10/2006)

10/19/2006 167 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Modify Schedule by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 11/6/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/19/2006)

10/20/2006
11/22/2006 11/27/2006 11/27/2006 11/28/2006

168 ORDER granting 167 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery subject to Judge Quarles' review. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/20/06.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
169 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
170 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
171 LETTER ORDER. A Telephone Hearing is scheduled for 11/29/06. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/27/06. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
172 Substantive legal issues − addressing (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/28/2006)

11/30/2006

173 PAPERLESS ORDER re: Paper Nos. 169, 170 and 172. For the reasons stated on the record during the telephone hearing held on November 29, 2006, Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's supplemental expert's report is DENIED. A transcript of the hearing shall be prepared and a copy forwarded to the Court, with costs to be split by the parties. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/30/2006. (Grimm, Paul)(kmw) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

12/22/2006 12/27/2006

174 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Modify Schedule by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 1/8/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
175 PAPERLESS ORDER GRANTING 174 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, subject to any modification by Judge Quarles. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/27/06.(Grimm, Paul) (Entered: 12/27/2006)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 18 of 22

01/25/2007 03/01/2007

176 NOTICE by Kathy C. Koch, Kathy C. Koch of Withdrawal of Appearance (White, Pamela) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
Judge Paul W. Grimm no longer assigned to case. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

03/09/2007

177 MOTION for Summary Judgment by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 3/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit List Volume I# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Exhibit B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Exhibit F# 10 Notice of Lengthy Filing Exhibits G, L, M, Q, X, Z, AA and DD.# 11 Exhibit H# 12 Exhibit I# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Exhibit O# 17 Exhibit P# 18 Exhibit R# 19 Exhibit S# 20 Exhibit T# 21 Exhibit U# 22 Exhibit V# 23 Exhibit W# 24 Exhibit Y# 25 Exhibit BB# 26 Exhibit CC# 27 Exhibit EE# 28 Exhibit FF# 29 Exhibit GG# 30 Exhibit HH# 31 Exhibit II# 32 Exhibit JJ# 33 Exhibit KK# 34 Exhibit LL# 35 Exhibit MM# 36 Exhibit NN# 37 Exhibit OO# 38 Exhibit PP# 39 Exhibit QQ# 40 Exhibit RR# 41 Exhibit SS# 42 Exhibit TT# 43 Exhibit UU# 44 Exhibit V V# 45 Exhibit List Volume II# 46 Exhibit WW# 47 Exhibit XX# 48 Exhibit YY# 49 Exhibit ZZ# 50 Exhibit AAA# 51 Exhibit BBB# 52 Exhibit CCC# 53 Exhibit DDD# 54 Exhibit EEE# 55 Exhibit FFF# 56 Exhibit GGG# 57 Exhibit HHH# 58 Exhibit III# 59 Exhibit JJJ# 60 Exhibit KKK# 61 Exhibit LLL# 62 Exhibit MMM# 63 Exhibit NNN# 64 Exhibit OOO# 65 Exhibit PPP# 66 Exhibit QQQ# 67 Exhibit RRR# 68 Exhibit SSS# 69 Exhibit TTT# 70 Exhibit UUU# 71 Errata V V V# 72 Exhibit WWW# 73 Exhibit XXX)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/09/2007)

03/09/2007 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 3/26/2007 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/09/2007)

03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/16/2007
03/23/2007

179 MOTION to Seal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/26/2007 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
180 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Filing of Lengthy Exhibits (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
181 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct /Modify Schedule by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 4/2/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
182 ORDER granting 181 JOINT Motion to Modify the Schedule as therein set forth. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 3/23/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/23/2007)

05/04/2007

183 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment AND MEMORANDUM of Law in Opposition to 178 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by LA Weight Loss. Replies due by 5/18/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Text of Proposed Order # 3 Exhibit List# 4 Exhibit A# 5 Errata B# 6 Exhibit C# 7 Exhibit D# 8 Exhibit E# 9 Errata F# 10 Exhibit G# 11 Exhibit H# 12 Exhibit I# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Notice of Lenghty Filing Exhibits N, EE, NN, V V, W W# 18 Exhibit O# 19 Exhibit P# 20 Exhibit Q# 21 Exhibit R# 22 Exhibit S# 23 Exhibit T# 24 Exhibit U# 25 Exhibit V# 26 Exhibit W# 27 Exhibit X# 28 Exhibit Y# 29 Exhibit Z# 30 Exhibit AA# 31 Exhibit BB# 32 Exhibit CC# 33 Exhibit DD# 34 Exhibit FF# 35 Exhibit GG# 36 Exhibit HH# 37 Exhibit II# 38 Exhibit JJ# 39 Exhibit KK# 40 Exhibit LL# 41 Exhibit MM# 42 Exhibit OO# 43 Exhibit PP# 44 Exhibit QQ# 45 Exhibit RR# 46 Exhibit SS# 47 Exhibit TT# 48 Exhibit UU# 49 Exhibit XX# 50 Exhibit YY# 51 Exhibit ZZ# 52 Exhibit AAA)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) Modified on 5/8/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/04/2007)

05/04/2007 184 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of filing of lengthy exhibits (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

05/04/2007

185 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant LA Weight Loss Centers, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/21/2007 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 05/04/2007)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 19 of 22

05/04/2007 05/08/2007

186 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Plaintiff EEOC's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant LA Weight Loss Centers, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/21/2007 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
187 MARGINAL ORDER granting 186 Motion of EEOC for Leave to File Memorandum in Opposition to Def. Motion for Summary Judgment in Excess of Local Rule Page Limitation. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 5/7/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

05/08/2007 188 MARGINAL ORDER granting 185 Motion of Plaintiff to Seal Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Appendix. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 5/8/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/09/2007)

05/15/2007 189 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time / Modify Schedule by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 6/1/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

05/16/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007

190 ORDER granting 189 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 6/1/07 to file replies to dispositive motions. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 5/16/07. (hml, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
191 REPLY to Response in Opposition to 177 LA Weight Loss Centers Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by LA Weight Loss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Notice of Lengthy Filing Exhibits D & K# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) Modified on 6/1/2007 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 06/01/2007)
192 REPLY to Response to Motion re 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 17)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
193 MOTION to Seal Two Exhibits to Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Adverse Inference Jury Instructions at Trial by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/18/2007 (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

06/12/2007

194 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to the Reply Memorandum in Support of EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 6/29/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

06/15/2007

195 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendant LA Weight Loss Centers, Inc.s Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 7/2/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Anderson, Corbett) (Entered: 06/15/2007)

07/19/2007 07/19/2007
08/31/2007 08/31/2007

196 MARGINAL ORDER granting 179 Motion of Plaintiff to Seal Memorandum and Appendix Supporting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 7/19/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
197 MARGINAL ORDER granting 193 Motion of Plaintiff to Seal Two Exhibits to Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Adverse Inference Jury Instructions at trial. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 7/19/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
198 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 8/31/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
199 ORDER denying 177 Motion of Defendant for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 178 Motion of Plaintiff for Partial Summary Judgment; denying as MOOT 183 Motion of Defendant for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 194 Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File a Surreply; denying 195 Motion of Defendant for Leave to File a Surreply. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 8/31/07. (mcb, Deputy

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 20 of 22

09/04/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007 10/29/2007 10/30/2007
11/21/2007 11/21/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 01/04/2008 01/14/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 02/06/2008 03/07/2008

Clerk) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
200 MEMORANDUM to Counsel of Record. Pretrial Conference scheduled for Octboer 5, 2007. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 9/4/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
201 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce S Harrison on behalf of LA Weight Loss (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
202 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of Pretrial Conference for Purposes of Settlement Negotiations by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 9/24/2007 (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
203 ORDER granting 202 Joint Motion for Continuance of the Pretrial Conference. Pretrial Conference scheduled for December 5, 2007 in Chambers. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 9/7/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
204 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time − Extend Pretrial Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 11/15/2007 (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
205 MARGINAL ORDER granting 204 JOINT Motion to Extend Pretrial Conference for Purposes of Continued Settlement Negotiations. Pretrial Conference rescheduled for January 11, 2008. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 10/30/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
206 MOTION to Seal The Declaration and Certification of David E. Landau by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 12/10/2007 (Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
207 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 12/10/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing of Document Under Seal)(Torphy Donzella, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
208 MOTION to Continue Pretrial Conference by LA Weight Loss. Responses due by 12/14/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
209 Request for Conference (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
Status Conference held on 11/30/2007 before Judge William D Quarles Jr. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
210 ORDER CONFIRMING the results of the Status Conference held on 11/30/07. Signed by Judge William D Quarles Jr. on 11/30/07. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
211 MARGINAL ORDER granting 206 Motion of Defendant to Seal the Declaration and Certification of David E. Landau. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 1/4/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
212 Correspondence re: Petition for Bankruptcy (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
213 ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING the case, without prejudice. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 1/15/08. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
214 MOTION to Reopen Case by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 2/1/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Re−Open Case)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
215 ORDER granting 214 Motion of Plaintiff to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr., on 2/4/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
216 (WITHDRAWN − see docket #225) MOTION for Default Judgment as to by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 3/24/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Proposed Judgment)(Phillips, Ronald) Modified on 4/2/2008 (mcb, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/07/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 21 of 22

03/19/2008 217 Correspondence re: Pre−Trial Conference (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
03/19/2008 218 NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce S Harrison on behalf of LA Weight Loss (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

03/19/2008 219 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by LA Weight Loss Responses due by 4/7/2008 (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

03/19/2008 220 RESPONSE re 216 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Plaintiff's Application filed by LA Weight Loss. (Harrison, Bruce) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

03/19/2008 03/20/2008
03/25/2008 03/25/2008

221 Correspondence re: March 25, 2008 Pre−Trial Conference (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
222 ORDER SCHEDULING a Telephone Status Conference for March 25, 2008. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 3/20/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
Telephone Status Conference held on 3/25/2008 before Judge William D Quarles, Jr. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
223 MEMORANDUM to Counsel of Record re: CONFIRMING that a Telephone Status Conference has been scheduled for May 20, 2008. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 3/25/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/25/2008)

04/01/2008 224 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 216 MOTION for Default Judgment as to (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/01/2008)

04/02/2008 04/07/2008 04/21/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008

225 MARGINAL ORDER approving 224 NOTICE of Withdrawal of 216 Application for Default Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 4/2/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
226 RESPONSE in Opposition re 219 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 4/21/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
227 RESPONSE in Opposition re 219 MOTION to Stay Proceedings OF CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE filed by Arthur P Liebersohn. Replies due by 5/5/2008. (Hemmendinger, Eric) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
Telephone Conference held on 5/20/2008 before Judge William D Quarles, Jr. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
228 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 5/20/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

05/20/2008 229 ORDER denying 219 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by LA Weight Loss. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 5/20/08. (mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

06/05/2008 06/09/2008 07/31/2008 08/05/2008 08/20/2008

230 PAPERLESS ORDER. Counsel are directed to submit their proposed pretrial conference date within 10 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on June 5, 2008. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
231 Status Report Submitted regarding order to submit proposed pre−trial conference date by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
232 PAPERLESS ORDER. Counsel are directed to file a status report on or before August 8, 2008. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on July 31, 2008. (Quarles, William) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
233 Status Report Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
234 Status Report Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 08/20/2008)

09/05/2008 235 Status Report Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

Case: 1:02-cv-648 As of: 05/29/2020 12:36 PM EDT 22 of 22

10/23/2008 12/01/2008

236 STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
237 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Responses due by 12/18/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 12/01/2008)

12/01/2008 238 CONSENT DECREE and Approval. Signed by Judge William D Quarles, Jr on 12/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(mcb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/01/2008)