Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01428/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01428-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

ERIKA MORALES and ANONYMOUS )

PLAINTIFF’S ONE THROUGH EIGHT )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors )

v. )

)

)

ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, )

et al. )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07-cv-01428 LJO JLT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART EEOC’S MOTION TO

EXTEND THE NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY

AND TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING

ORDER TO ALLOW THE PARTIES TO

TAKE UP TO 40 DEPOSITIONS

(Doc 148)

Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) seeks an order

extending the non-expert discovery deadline by 60 days and allowing the parties to take up to 40

depositions. (Doc. 148) The defendants oppose this motion. On February 1, 2010, the Court heard

argument regarding this motion. The Court has read and considered the pleadings and arguments of

counsel and makes the following ruling.

///

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 28, 2007, the EEOC initiated this action against Defendants ABM Industries, Inc.

and ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. (Doc. 1.) ABMNC was added as a defendant through the First

Amended Complaint filed on July 17, 2009. (Doc. 118.) In short, the EEOC’s alleges that the

defendants (referred collectively here as “ABM”) engaged in a unlawful pattern and practice of sexual

harassment and that ABM provided a hostile work environment. (Id.) 

In the current motion, the EEOC seeks to extend the non-expert discovery by 60 days due to its

request to expand the number of depositions that each partymay take to 40. ABM opposes this motion.

Analysis

A. Modification of the Scheduling Order

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(B)(4) provides, “A schedule may be modified only for good

cause and with the judge's consent.” This “good cause” standard considers, primarily the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment and, although prejudice to the party opposing the motion is a

consideration, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “If that party was not diligent, the

inquiry should end.” Id.

At issue in this current motion are two modifications; to extend the non-expert discovery

deadline by 60 days and to expand the number of depositions that each party may take to 40. The joint

statement makes clear that theEEOCbelieves that the extension ofthe discovery deadline is needed only

if it is given the authority to take the additional depositions. (Doc 148 at 12:6-9)

1. Motion to expand the number of depositions to 40 per party

The EEOC seeks to increase the number of deposition it may take from 20 to 40. It is somewhat

unclear how many depositions have been taken by the EEOC thus far or the identity of past deponents.

The joint statement indicates that the “EEOC has taken six depositions including harassers, managers,

witnesses and two human resources representatives.” (Doc 148 at 7) The joint statement indicates also

that the EEOC “has already noticed the depositions of some of the harassers and intends to schedule

further depositions before the February deadline.” (Doc. 148 at 12) The joint statement then reports,

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

At the hearing on the motion, counsel for the EEOC indicated that the next day it would take the deposition of a 1

former attorney of ABM for the purpose of establishing that the EEOC had engaged in the conciliation process. In light of

the fact that ABM concedes in the joint statement in a companion discovery dispute that it underwent conciliation with the

EEOC in this matter (Doc. 144p. 3n. 2), the Court is concerned about the criteria the EEOC has employed in deciding whether

to take a deposition and which depositions to take. “It is important for all parties to understand that prior to taking any

deposition they must always assess whether or not a deposition of that witness is truly necessary, based in part upon the time

and expense that even a single deposition incurs for all parties involved.” Smith v. Ardew Wood Products, 2008 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 93855, *4 (W.D. Wash. 2008) . 

At hearing, the Court attempted to clarify with the EEOC as to which of these witnesses were adverse to the EEOC’s 2

case but counsel was unable to do so.

3

“with its 20 depositions, EEOC will likely depose six newly identified harassers, seven fact witnesses

who are ABM supervisors, and one Rule 30(b)(6) witness.” (Doc. 148 at 14:10-11) On the other hand,

ABM indicates that the EEOC has noticed only 18 depositions. (Doc. 148 at 20:26-28)

The EEOC complains that the identified “deposition schedule seriously prejudices the EEOC

because the EEOC would not be able to depose all of the harrassers, much less all of the pertinent

witnesses for its case in chief.” (Doc. 148 at 14:12-15) The EEOC lists 16 to 18 additional deponents 1

without setting forth, except in the most general of terms, the identities of these deponents or the

relevance of the information that they would provide. (Doc. 148 at 14:16-15:2) Finally, the EEOC

requests “a reserve of 2-4 depositions.” Id. 

The EEOC justifies the need for additional depositions based upon the number of witnesses

identified in its own Rule 26 disclosure. (Doc 148 at 13:11-13) However, “The mere fact that many 2

individuals may have discoverable information does not necessarily entitle a party to depose each such

individual. Advisory Committee's Notes to the 1993 amendments to Rule 26 highlight that a brief

synopsis of ‘the general topics on which [persons identified] have information . . . will assist other

parties in deciding which depositions will actually be needed.’” Dixon v. Certainteed Corp., 164 F.R.D.

685, 692 (D.Kan. 1996). Moreover, although the number of identified claimants has increased from 8

to 21, the bulk of this increase occurred by May 22, 2009 when the EEOC incrementally with 18

identified them to ABM. (Doc. 148 at 9:18-21) This was two months before the Scheduling Conference

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Scheduling Conference Order does not indicate that the parties agreed to alter the limitations of Fed. R. Civ.

3

P. 30(a)(2)(A)(I). (Doc. 121 at 2:19-3:3) However, based upon the representations of the parties in the joint statement, it

appears that the parties have entered into a stipulation for the parties conduct 20 depositions. (Doc. 148)

4

on July 27, 2009. It is unclear, therefore, why the EEOC feels that the addition of 3 claimants since that

3

time, warrants doubling the number of depositions.

Rather than making a particularized showing of why the additional discovery is necessary, the

EEOC provides only a conclusory statement that the testimony from these witnesses “will neither be

duplicative, cumulative, nor obtainable from other discovery sources since previously deposed witnesses

could not and have not been able to testify about the information these additional witness will be able

to provide.” (Doc. 148 at 15) This is not sufficient. Smith v. Ardew Wood Products, 2008 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 93855, *2-3 (W.D. Wash 2008); Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 271 (8th Cir. 1996). A mere

assertion that a party “should not have to face trial witnesses without having first deposed them does not

amount to a particularized showing as contemplated by the Rule 30(a)(2)(A).” Smith, at *4. In addition,

the EEOC asserts that the “ABM supervisor fact witnesses will have personal knowledge about what

occurred at their respective work sites, whether the claimants complained or attempted to complain

about the sexual harassment, whether they knew or should have known about the harassment, and

whether ABM took remedial action in response to any complaints.” (Doc. 148 at 15) However, other

than Jim Dremel, the Court cannot determine from the EEOC’s submission, which of the proposed

deponents the EEOC claims are “ABM supervisor fact witnesses.” Therefore, this additional

information is of meager help. 

Likewise, the case cited in support of the motion, Byrd v. District of Columbia, 259 F.R.D. 1,

5 (D. D.C. 2009), provides little assistance to the EEOC. In Byrd, the plaintiffs sought to add several

depositions over the presumptive limit set by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and over that to which

the defendants agreed. Id. The plaintiffs supported their request for the additional depositions with

declarations that set forth the information that was expected to be received from each proposed deponent

and why the defendant’s objections to them, as cumulative or duplicative, were unfounded. Id. at 5-6.

Nearly without exception, the EEOC has failed to set forth any facts, rather than mere conclusory

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The EEOC appeared to use five standard “blurbs” to describe the expected testimony. Listed on this disclosure

4

are all but four of the proposed deponents identified in the joint statement. Clearly, this recitation militates against a

conclusion that the testimony is not duplicative and cumulative.

5

statements, that would justify doubling the number of depositions to 40. Moreover, in reviewing the

EEOC’s fourth Rule 26 disclosure submitted in support of the motion, the descriptions of the evidence

to be gleaned from each witness evidence provide no clarity. On the other hand, in the joint statement, 4

ABM provides a chart analyzing the expected testimony from each witness identified by the EEOC and

argues that none are justified. (Doc. 148 at 20-27)

i. Two unnamed, alleged “Fresno harassers”

The EEOCseeksto depose “two additional Fresno harassers” and asserts that it expects to obtain

their account of the alleged harassment. (Doc. 148 at14-15). Although the Court is concerned that the

EEOC has not identified these deponents by name, the Court concludes that these two depositions are

relevant and are not likely to be cumulative or duplicative. Likewise, based upon the fact that the EEOC

alleges that these two witnesses have engaged in this unlawful behavior, there appears to be no other

lesser expensive or burdensome manner to obtain this information. Therefore, the EEOC’s motion to

take two additional depositions of two “additional Fresno harassers” is GRANTED.

ii. Ana Esquivel and Erin Andre

The EEOC asserts that Ms. Esquivel is the ABM Northern California Vice President of Human

Resources and that Erin Andre is the “Human Resources officer” for that defendant. (Doc. 148 at14)

The EEOC does not identify the evidence it expects to obtain from either witness. To the contrary, the

declaration of Laura Hayward indicates that both work, instead for ABM Industries which is the parent

company of ABM Janitorial Services – Northern California. Likewise, ABM indicates that the person

who is the true human resource manager for the direct employer, Tom Cazale, has been deposed.

Therefore, the Court finds that deposition of these two witnesses would be cumulative and duplicative

and, therefore, the motion to depose these witnesses is DENIED.

iii. Vellita Johnson

The EEOC describes Ms. Johnson as “an ABM Human resources employee who investigated

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The letter was attached to the deposition of Mr. Steiner and produced here by ABM but the poor quality of the copy

5

makes it impossible for the Court to read.

6

harassment.” (Doc. 148 at 14) ABM clarifies that Ms. Johnson“was involved in an investigation”

stemming from a complaint from a third-party about an incident that occurred at a customer’s job site.

Id. ABM notes that the complainant has not been identified by the EEOC as a witness in this case and

that the investigation occurred at the direction of counsel for ABM. Id. The EEOC does not counter

ABM’s account of the situation. 

From the scant information provided, the Court cannot determine whether the investigation

related to sexual harassment nor whether, if there was sexual harassment, that it was perpetrated by an

employee of ABM or, for that matter, whether an ABM employee was the victim of it. In short, on the

evidence presented, the Court cannot determine that this deposition would not be cumulative or

duplicative. Therefore, the EEOC has failed to meet its burden of justifying the additional depositions

and its request to depose this witness is DENIED.

iv. Jim Dremel

The EEOC indicates that Mr. Dremel is “a former ABM manager in Bakersfield” but offers no

information as to his expected testimony. (Doc. 148 at 14.) ABM asserts that the EEOC has taken the

deposition of two ABM managers who were stationed in Bakersfield at the time of the “key events.”

(Doc. 148 at 22-23) The EEOC does not dispute this assertion. Therefore, on the evidence presented,

the Court finds that this deposition would be cumulative and duplicative. Therefore, the EEOC’s request

to depose this witness is DENIED.

v. The Priest at Valley Bible Church

The EEOC indicates that this deponent was “a witness to harassment and ABM’s response to

harassment.” (Doc. 148 at 14) ABM indicates that the Priest did not witness any harassment but,

instead, received a letter from a person who claimed to witness an act of harassment. (Doc. 148 at 24)

ABM reports that it sent the Priest a letter outlining its response to the complaint and that this letter has

been produced to the EEOC and its author has been deposed. Id. Once again, the EEOC does not 5

dispute ABM’s account on this point. Therefore, on the evidence presented, the Court finds that this

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

deposition would be cumulative and duplicative. Therefore, the EEOC’s request to depose this witness

is DENIED.

vi. Sylvia Challeunrath

The EEOC asserts that Ms. Challeunrath is “ABM’s person who interviewed potential

harassment victims.” (Doc. 148 at 14.) ABM confirms that Ms.Challeunrath interviewed the alleged

victim of this event of harassment that occurred at Valley Bible Church. (Doc 148 at 25) Ms.

Challeunrath summarized the interview in an e-mail sent to Tom Cazale and Ric Steiner, who oversaw

the interview. Id. Excerpts from the depositions of Cazale and Steiner indicate that Ms, Challeunrath

merely acted as a Spanish language translator and, in fact, that Mr. Cazale gave her a list of questions

to ask. Once again, the EEOC does not dispute ABM’s account this witnesses’ involvement.

Without some representation that, for example, Ms. Challenurath did not correctly report what

was told to her by the interviewee(s) or that there is some other information to be gathered from this

witness, and in light of the information provided by ABM, the Court has no basis upon which to

conclude that this deposition would not be cumulative or duplicative. Therefore, the EEOC’s request

to depose this witness is DENIED.

vii. Eduardo Huerta and Johann Mendel

As to each of these deponents, the EEOC asserts that they have information about “intimidation.”

Who the EEOC claims has been intimidated or by whom is not explained. (Doc 148 p. 14) Also, the

EEOC has failed to describe the relationship of these witnesses to the litigation. 

On the other hand, ABM indicates that it is not aware of any “witness intimidation” and that no

witness deposed thus far has indicated that intimidation has occurred. (Doc. 148 at 24-25)The EEOC

does not dispute ABM’s assertion that ABM is unaware of any evidence of witness intimidation. 

Also, the EEOC has failed to provide the necessary information to allow the Court to make a

determination about whether the evidence sought from these witnesses justifies a departure from the

Scheduling Order and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A). Moreover, the Court has no

evidence upon which it mayconclude that the EEOC cannot obtain this information through other, lesser

expensive and burdensome means, such as obtaining a statement or recorded interview from the

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

witnesses. Therefore, the motion to depose these witnesses is DENIED.

viii. Scott Stevenson

The EEOC asserts that Mr. Stevenson is “a fact witness to harassment.” (Doc. 148 at 14.) ABM

clarifies that Mr. Stevenson was the author of the letter to the Priest at Valley Bible Church related to

an incident that occurred at the church to which Stevenson was a witness. (Doc. 148 at 24-25.) ABM

concludes that because the letter was written five years ago, Stevenson’s memory is not as reliable as

the letter he wrote. Id. Even if true, this does not support ABM’s claim that the testimony would be

cumulative or duplicative. 

On the other hand, the EEOC is required to demonstrate that “less expensive and burdensome

means of discovery [are unavailable] before resorting to a request for relief from Rule 30's restrictions.”

Smith, at *3-4. The EEOC has not explained why other, lesser expensive and burdensome means, such

as obtaining a statement or recorded interview from Mr. Stevenson would not provide the information

that it seeks. Given this failure, the motion to depose this witness is DENIED.

ix. Natalie Vasquez, Abel Vasquez, Eloy Garcia, Alexis Vasquez, Jennifer

Howard Vasquez and Sonia Vasquez

The EEOC seeks depositions of three of this group of six witnesses who “are fact witness [sic]

to policy violations. (Doc. 148 at 14) The EEOC does not clarify what policy or policies are at issue.

Id. ABM assumes that the EEOC is referring to Jose Vasquez’s practice of hiring family members in

violation of ABM’s nepotism policy and hiding his relationship to these employees from ABM. (Doc

148 at 25-26. Assuming the nepotism policy is the one that EEOC contends is at issue, the excerpt from

Jose Vasquez’s deposition indicates that he has admitted taking this action. The EEOC does not

describe the new or different evidence it expects to obtain from any of these other witnesses. 

Finally, the EEOC has failed to explain how a violation of the nepotism policy supports any

element of its case or bears on the issues raised in the First Amended Complaint. Given these failures,

the motion to depose these witnesses is DENIED.

x. “Two Pelco managers”

The EEOC seeks to depose “two Pelco managers who are fact witnesses to the Fresno sexual

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

assault.” (Doc. 148 at 14) The EEOC does not clarify what or who Pelco is and the Court presumes that

this is a janitorial customer of ABM. ABM’s information in the joint statement implies that there was

an incident of sexual harassment at Pelco but that the alleged victim is not a complainant in this case.

The joint statement does not make clear whether the alleged harasser is an employee of ABM, although

the Court assumes that this is the situation. Given this assumed factual situation, information gathered

from Pelco managers could bear on the allegations of “pattern and practice.”

If the Court’s assumption is true, that Pelco is a third-party, the EEOC has failed to explain why

other, lesser expensive and burdensome means, such as obtaining a statement or recorded interview from

the “two Pelco managers” would not provide the information that the EEOC seeks. On the other hand,

the fact that the Court must make assumptions about the factual situation makes clear that the EEOC has

failed to meet is burden on the motion. Therefore, the motion to depose these witnesses is DENIED.

xi. “Reserve of 2 to 4"

The EEOC seeks authority to take the depositions of two to four other, unidentified witnesses.

(Doc. 148 at 14-15) Because the EEOC fails to identify these witnesses or the substance of their

expected testimony, the Court cannot conclude that their testimony would not be cumulative or

duplicative. The motion to depose these witnesses is DENIED.

2. Motion to continue the non-expert discovery by 60 days

Based upon the Court’s determination of the scope of the permissible, additional depositions set

forth above, the Court finds no good cause to extend the non-expert discovery cut-off by 60 days.

However, to allow time to complete the depositions authorized by this order but to minimize the impact

on expert discovery, the Court GRANTS the motion to extend the non-expert discovery to February 26,

2010.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production

of Documents (Doc. ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. The EEOC is GRANTED leave to take the depositions of the “two additional Fresno

harassers.” If these two depositions can be taken within the 20 depositions that were

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

previously authorized, no additional depositions are authorized. The EEOC is ordered

to identify to ABM in writing the names of the “two additional Fresno harassers” so that

ABM receives this information no later than noon on February 9, 2010. The parties are

ordered to complete the depositions of these two witnesses no later than February 26,

2010. 

2. In all other respects, the EEOC’s motion requesting authorization to take 40 depositions,

is DENIED.

3. The parties are given until February 26, 2010, to complete the depositions authorized by

this order. In all other respects, the EEOC’s motion to extend non-expert discovery is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/08/10 Page 10 of 10