Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00047/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00047-8/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

__________________________________________________________

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR THIRTY DAY EXTENSION OF 

M ODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Case No. C-04-00047JW

Stephen G. Seliger, #123859

155 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 500

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 616-4244 (telephone)

(312) 565-7289 (telefax)

Regina Silva

COOK BROWN, LLP

1851 East First Street, Suite 1440

Santa Ana, CA 92705

(714) 542-1883 (telephone)

(714) 542-1008 (telefax)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GRACIELA ZAMORA, OLGA LEYVA

VELARDE, TERESA LARA and

MARIA RODRIGUEZ DE TORRES, on

behalf of themselves and all other persons

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

D'ARRIGO BROTHERS COMPANY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION

CASE NO. C-04-00047JW

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR THIRTY

DAY EXTENSION OF MODIFIED

SCHEDULING ORDER

Complaint filed: January 7, 2004

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Northern District Rules 6-1(b) and

6-2, the parties hereby submit a Stipulated Request for an Order seeking to amend the Modified

Scheduling Order entered by the Court on November 30, 2006 to allow for a thirty day extension for

the production of expert reports and a thirty day extension for the completion of discovery. The

parties’ Request consists of the instant Stipulated Request, the Declaration of Stephen G. Seliger,

and the Proposed Order lodged concurrently herewith.

The parties, by and through their respective counsel-of-record, hereby stipulate as follows:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), good cause exists to grant an order

amending the Court’s Modified Scheduling Order for the following reasons:

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 28
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

__________________________________________________________

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR THIRTY DAY EXTENSION OF 

M ODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 2 Case No. C-04-00047JW

A. In October, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendant to produce a witness

in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition relating to statistical information needed by their expert.

 On November 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lloyd issued an order compelling this deposition. The

decision is attached as Exhibit A. The deposition took place on November 21, 2006. As a result of

this motion and other matters presented to the Court, this Court extended the time for expert reports

and entered a Modified Scheduling Order on November 30, 2006, which is attached as Exhibit B.

This order requires the initial expert reports to be produced on April 9, 2007. All discovery is to

close on June 6, 2007.

B. In earlyNovember, 2006, plaintiffs served additional written discovery (a request for

documents and requests for admission) on the defendant dealing essentially with statistical

information. Defendant responded in part to these discovery requests in December, but there

remained disputes as to the breadth of some of the plaintiffs’ requests. After seeking to resolve their

differences, plaintiffs filed a fourth motion to compel on January 23, 2007. A hearing was held

before Magistrate Judge Lloyd on March 13, 2007, and on March 15, 2007, the Court granted the

motion in its entirety and ordered defendant to produce, inter alia, electronic data needed by the

plaintiffs’ expert. A copy of the Magistrate’s Order is attached as Exhibit C.

C. Defendant’s counsel is gathering this data and other responses and has promised that

all materials required by Judge Lloyd’s Order will be received by plaintiffs’ counsel by April 3,

2007. Under the Court’s Modified Scheduling Order, however, the expert reports are due on April

9, 2007. Due to the fact that the plaintiffs will not receive the underlying data needed for such a

report until April 3 , it will be impossible for their expert to produce a report by April 9 . Plaintiffs rd th

seek an additional thirty days to do so and request that the Court extend the initial expert report to

May 9 . Plaintiffs estimate that it will take approximately one month to organize the electronic data,

th

resolve technical problems that may arise, and perform statistical analyses necessary for their case.

Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Thomas DiPrete, is chairman of the Department of Sociology at Columbia

University and has several substantial commitments and duties in April making it impossible for him

to complete his work until May 9th. Defendant has no objection to this extension of time. For this

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 28
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

__________________________________________________________

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR THIRTY DAY EXTENSION OF 

M ODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 3 Case No. C-04-00047JW

reason, the parties seek an extension for the production of expert reports by thirty days, until May

9th.

D. Under the Modified Scheduling Order, discovery is to end on June 6, 2007.

Defendant’s counsel seeks an additional thirty days to complete discovery, which includes

depositions of experts, because she and her firm will be totally engaged in an arbitration process

ordered by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, in the case entitled, In the Matter of

the United Farm Workers of America and D’Arrigo Brothers Company of California, No. 2007-

MMC-1, which will begin on May 10 and will last for thirty days. Because plaintiffs’ expert report th

will not be produced until May 9 under the proposed Amended Scheduling Order, defendant will th

be unavailable to conduct any expert discovery until after the completion of the arbitration,

approximately June 10 . For this reason, defendant seeks an extension of the discovery cut-off date th

of thirty days. Plaintiffs have completed seven depositions and have three additional depositions,

which the parties are hoping to schedule before the arbitration. However, this may not be possible.

 Therefore, the parties seek an additional thirty days to complete discovery, until July 6, 2007.

E. This is the fourth request for an extension of the Case Management Order. However,

it is only for thirty days, and there is good cause for it given the delays caused by matters addressed

by Magistrate Judge Lloyd in his discovery orders and in the arbitration ordered by the Agricultural

Labor Relations Board.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Modified Scheduling Order be

extended by thirty days. A Declaration of Mr. Seliger and a proposed order is attached.

COOK BROWN, LLP

DATED: March 30, 2007 By: /s/Regina Silva 

REGINA SILVA

One of the Attorneys for Defendant

DATED: March 30, 2007 By: /s/Stephen G. Seliger 

STEPHEN G. SELIGER

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 28
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

__________________________________________________________

AM ENDED M ODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Case No. C-04-00047JW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GRACIELA ZAMORA, OLGA LEYVA

VELARDE, TERESA LARA and

MARIA RODRIGUEZ DE TORRES, on

behalf of themselves and all other persons

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

D'ARRIGO BROTHERS COMPANY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION

CASE NO. C-04-00047JW

AMENDED MODIFIED SCHEDULING

ORDER

Complaint filed: January 7, 2004

Upon the Stipulation filed by the parties on March 30, 2007, seeking a thirty day extension of the

Modified Scheduling Order entered by this Court on November 30, 2006, the Court modified its

Order as follows:

The Case Schedule on page 1 of the Modified Scheduling Order is amended as follows:

Close of All Discovery July 9, 2007

Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions September 6, 2007

Preliminary Pretrial Conference at 11:00 a.m. November 1, 2007

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements October 21, 2007

Dated:

 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

X

10X

5

XX26 4/3/2007

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 28
Exhibit A 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 28
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 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 1 of 5 

*E-filed 11/7/06" 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GRACIELA ZAMORA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vo 

D'ARRIGO BROTHER COMPANY OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Case No. C04-00047 JW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL 

Re: Docket No. 115 

Defendant. 

This is a sex discrimination class action. Plaintiffs now seek to compel defendant to 

comply with their Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice related to the computer-readable 

personnel data produced by defendant. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs allege that defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful sex 

discrimination in refusing to promote or assign women to supervisory positions or positions 

requiring the operation of machinery. Plaintiffs plan to present as evidence at trial an expert 

statistical analysis and report. They state that this report will be based primarily on computerreadable personnel data provided by defendant to plaintiffs. This data pertains to female and 

male employees and forepersons over an approximately five year period. In April 2006, 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 6 of 28
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 2 of 5 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

defendant produced electronic data in response to a document request. Plaintiffs' electronic data 

consultant apparently found several problems with the data, including inconsistencies, 

incompleteness, and undecipherable codes. In August 2006, plaintiffs served defendant with a 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) notice of deposition seeking the company representative most 

knowledgeable about the data and the system that produced it. Defendant objects to producing 

a 30(b)(6) representative on two grounds: (1) plaintiffs failed to seek leave of court for a 

second 30(b)(6) deposition, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2); (2) plaintiffs have not 

established good cause for a second 30(b)(6) deposition consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

Plaintiffs move to compel participation. Plaintiffs argue they need to conduct a second 30(b)(6) 

deposition because the depositions are on different subjects, involve different corporate 

representatives, and the proposed computer data deposition could not have been taken in 2004 

because defendant did not produce its data until 2006. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A party must obtain leave of court to depose any person that has already been deposed 

in a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B) ("A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be 

granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if...without the 

written stipulation of the parties...the person to be examined already has been deposed in the 

case.") 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) indicates that leave should be granted unless: 

(i) the [second deposition] sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is 

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive; 

(ii) the party seeking [the second deposition] has had ample opportunity by discovery in 

the action to obtain the information sought; or 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed [second deposition] outweighs its likely 

benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' 

Defendant produced a 30(b)(6) witness on July 20, 2004. 

2 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 7 of 28
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 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 3 of 5 

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of 

the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. 

DISCUSSION 

The court construes plaintiffs' motion as a request for leave to conduct a second Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition, and proceeds to analyze the applicability of the Rule 26(b)(2) criteria. 

First, the discovery sought is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, because the 

2004 witness could not have answered questions about data produced in 2006. See Vincent v. 

Mortman, 2006 WL 726680, at * 1 (D.Conn. March 17, 2006) ("courts frequently permit a 

deposition to be reopened where...new information comes to light triggering questions that the 

discovering party would not have thought to ask at the first deposition")(citations and quotation 

marks omitted); Collins v. International Dairy Queen, 189 F.R.D. 496, 498 (M.D.Georgia 1999) 

(second deposition allowed where it was likely to produce new information not obtainable in 

the first deposition, and a second deposition had not been shown to be unduly burdensome or 

expensive). The proposed second deposition will not cover the same issues as the first 

deposition did, because it will be limited to questions arising from the employee electronic 

computer data compiled and produced by defendant, as well as the system that generated such 

data. Contrast with Innomed Labs, LLC v. Alza Corporation, 211 F.R.D. 237, 239-40 

(S.D.N.Y. 2002). 

Defendant argues that a second deposition is not justified because plaintiffs have not 

followed through on alternative means of obtaining the information. Defendant suggests that 

plaintiffs should have employed some other form of discovery once they discovered the 

problem with the computer data. However• defendant fails to explain why a 30(b)(6) deposition 

might be an inappropriate or inefficient approach. No rule requires plaintiffs to pursue every 

possible alternative before noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition. Rule 26(b)(2) pertains to information 

"obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome and less 

expensive." But defendant has not shown that the 30(b)(6) approach is inconvenient, 

burdensome, or expensive. Defendant does suggest that plaintiffs should have pursued more 

informal means of answering their questions about data, such as further correspondence 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 8 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 4 of 5 

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 

between counsel. However, letters from counsel are simply not equivalent to a formal, sworn 

30(b)(6) deposition. The court concludes that Rule 26 does not bar a second deposition. 

The court ORDERS defendant to produce a corporate representative in compliance with 

the August deposition notice, with a date set according to the convenience of the parties but no 

later than ten days after the filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/7/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 9 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/2006 Page 5 of 5 

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 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY 

MAILED TO: 

James Gerard Bradtke jgbvjd@aol.com, gikm@aol.com 

Annabelle Cortez-Gonzalves agcortez@ufwmail.com, 

Geoffrey F. Gega ggega@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com 

Mario G. Martinez mariomtz@ufwmail.com 

Stephen G. Seliger SSeligerl@aol.com, 

Regina Silva rsilva@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com 

Paul Strauss pstrauss@lawmbg.com, ldavis@lawmbg.com; slegenza@lawmbg.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up 

for e-filing. 

Dated: 11/7/06 /s/ JMM 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 10 of 28
Exhibit • • B 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 11 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 137 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 1 of 5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

l0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

Graciela Zamora, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

D'Arrigo Brothers Company of Ca., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. C 04-00047 JW 

MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 

On November 29, 2006, the parties filed a stipulated request for a modification of their May 

3, 2006 Scheduling Order. (.See Docket Item No. 136.) However, some of the dates the parties 

selected do not coincide with the Court's calendar. Accordingly, the Court MODIFIES the case 

schedule as follows: 

CASE SCHEDULE 

Close of All Discovery (¶ 9) June 6, 2007 

Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions (¶ 10) August 6, 2007 

(60 days before Preliminary Pretrial Conference) 

Preliminary Pretrial Conference at 11 a.m. (¶ 12) October 1, 2007 

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements (¶ 11) September 21, 2007 

(Due 10 days before conference) 

None of the dates set in this order may be changed without an order of the court made after a 

motion is duly filed and made pursuant to the local rules of this court. 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 12 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-OOO47-JW Document 137 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 2 of 5 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Standing Order to Lodge Printed Copy of '"ECF" Papers 

1. In all cases, including cases covered by the Electronic Case Filing System of the 

Court "ECF," when filing papers in connection with any motion or any pretrial conference, in 

addition to filing the paper electronically, the filing parties shall lodge with the Clerk's Office a 

printed copy &the papers, in an envelop clearly marked "Chamber's Copy Lodged for the 

Chambers of Judge James Ware." The "Chamber's Copy" envelop must state the case name and case 

number and be delivered on or before the close of the next court day following the day the papers 

are filed electronically. See Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases. 

Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge 

2. The Court adopts the Discovery Plan proposed by the parties in their Joint Case 

Management Statement. The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan. Any disputes 

with respect to the implementation of the discovery plan and all disclosure or discovery disputes are 

referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. In addition, any disputes pertaining to service or joinder 

of parties or claims are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. 

Document Management During Pretrial Discovery_ and Electronic Evidence Presentation 

3. This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation system. 

Before commencement of pretrial discovery, the parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with 

the system, and to meet and confer about whether the case will involve voluminous documentary. If 

so, as the parties identify documentary material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the 

parties are ordered to electronically store these materials in a fashion, which will facilitate displaying 

them electronically during the trial. The parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-2(b) requires 

sequential numbering of exhibits during depositions and that numbering must be maintained for 

those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for 

identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on a 

division which will avoid duplication (e._•., Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1" 100,000-299,999; 

Defendant #2: 300,000-500,000). 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 13 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 137 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 3 of 5 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

l0 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Disclosure of Expert Witnesses 

4. Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony with respect to a claim or a 

defense shall lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties the name, address, qualifications, 

r6sum6 and a written report which complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) 63 days before close of 

discovery. Expert witness disclosure must be made with respect to a person who is either (a) 

specially retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 or 

(b) a regular employee or agent or treating physician who may be called to provide expert opinion 

testimony. 

5. The parties are also required to lodge any supplemental reports to which any expert 

will testify at trial in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

6. Any party objecting to the qualifications or proposed testimony of an expert must 

file, serve and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any portion of the expert's testimony in 

writing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no later than 42 DAYS AFTER BOTH 

EXPERT AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES ON A MONDAY (LAW AND 

MOTION DAY) at 9:00 a.m. and preferably before or on the same day as the discovery cutoff 

date at 9:00 a.m. 

Rebuttal Expert Witnesses 

7. If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion 

testimony on the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal 

expert shall make the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than 49 days prior 

to discovery cutoff. 

Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses 

8. Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely objection, an 

expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not disclosed prior to 

the expert's deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which expert opinion may be 

based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition. Unless application is 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 14 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-OOO47-JW Document 137 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 4 of 5 

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 

made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to calling only one expert 

witness in each discipline involved in the case. 

Close of Discovery_ 

9. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental disclosure, 

depositions of fact witness and expert witnesses, must be completed on or before the deadline set 

forth in the Case Schedule above. 

Last date for Hearing Dispositive Motions 

10. The last day for hearing dispositive motions is set forth in the Case Schedule above. 

Any motions must be noticed in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of this Court. 

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order 

11. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to confer with one another and to 

file and lodge with Chambers on or before the deadline set forth in the Case Schedule above a 

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order, stating their 

readiness for trial, the amount of time which the Court should allocate for trial and the calendar 

period for the trial. 

12. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to appear on the date set in the Case 

Schedule at 11:00 a.m. for a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference. 

13. With respect to the time allocation for trial, at the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial 

Setting Conference trial counsel will be asked to stipulate to a time allocation to each side for the 

trial of the case. Once a stipulated allocation has been entered, the parties must plan their 

presentations to conform to the stipulated time allocation. 

14. With respect to the calendar period for trial, based on the time allotted to the case, a 

calendar period for trial will be set. In the event it becomes necessary to delay the start of trial 

because of the Court's calendar, the commencement date will trail from day-to day until the other 

matter is concluded or further order of the Court. t 

Dated: November 30, 2006 (] /,I L.t 

Unit•States District Judge 

4 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 15 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 137 Filed 11/30/2006 Page 5 of 5 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

l0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 

Annabelle Cortez-Gonzalves agcortez@ufwmail.com 

Geoffrey F. Gega ggega@cookbrown.com 

James Gerard Bradtke jgbvjd@aol.com 

Mario G. Martinez mariomtz@ufwmail.com 

Paul Strauss pstrauss@lawmbg.com 

Regina Silva rsilva(•,cookbrown.com 

Stephen G. Seliger •seligerl @aol.com 

Dated: November 30, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

By: /s/JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia 

Courtroom Deputy 

5 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 16 of 28
Exhibit C 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 17 of 28
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 

Case 5:04-cv-OOO47-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 11 

*E-filed 3/15/07* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GRACIELA ZAMORA, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

D'ARRIGO BROTHERS COMPANY OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. C04-00047 JW (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT 

Re: Docket No. 139 

In this sex discrimination class action, plaintiffs allege that defendant agricultural 

business fails to promote female field workers to the supervisory position of foreman. The 

subject of this order, however, is not discrimination, but rather discovery. Plaintiffs here move 

to compel: (1) responses to numbers and 6 of their fourth request for production of 

documents; (2) a response to certain questions left unanswered in defendant's 30(b)(6) 

deposition; (3) responses to several requests for admissions, and associated 

interrogatory/document responses; and (4) the deposition of John D'Arrigo, the president of the 

defendant company. Defendant opposes the motion, and a hearing was held on March 13, 2007. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Request for Production of Documents 

With respect to their fourth request for production of documents, plaintiffs now seek to 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 18 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 11 

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 

compel production of documents responsive to requests and 6. 

1. Request No. 1 

This request reads: "All documents from January 1, 1998 to the present that tabulate 

defendant's employees by gender, race and/or national origin, including Form EEO-1 Reports 

submitted during this period." In response, defendants produced no documents, objecting on 

grounds ofoverbreadth, burden, privacy rights, relevance, the statute of limitations, duplication 

of prior discovery requests, and vagueness and ambiguity respecting the term "tabulate." 

One of defendant's objections, to this and to other discovery requests at issue in th is 

motion, is that plaintiffs seek discovery dating back to January 1, 1998, while defendant's 

potential liability only dates back to July 5, 2001. Defendant contends that information 

predating the class period is not relevant. Plaintiffs cite this court's April 11, 2006 order on a 

different discovery motion, where production was ordered of certain employee data dating back 

to January 1, 1998. Defendant argues that the April 11, 2006 order only addressed the 

particular discovery request before the court at the time, and should not be extended to apply to 

all discovery requests. Defendant is correct that the court's earlier order only applied to 

requests before the court at the time; however, the same rationale applies to the current dispute. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instructs that "it is appropriate to admit pre-liability data 

into evidence in a disparate impact case if promotional practices remain similar over a long 

period of time." Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2002). If information can 

be admissible evidence, it certainly clears the lower hurdle of relevance at the discovery stage. 

Defendant's time period objection is therefore rejected. 

Defendant also argues that the request for documents that tabulate employees by race 

and gender is "nonsensical," and that plaintiffs should rephrase this request. However, 

defendant offers no rational explanation for its assertion and this court cannot think of one. The 

plaintiffs' original language seems perfectly acceptable. 

Finally, the court rejects defendant's suggestion that, merely because it has earlier 

produced "similar information," the request is cumulative. Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED as 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 19 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 3 of 11 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to this document request. Defendants must turn over all Form EEO-1 Reports submitted since 

January 1, 1998, as well as all other documents responsive to this request. 

2. Request No. 6 

This request reads: "For all persons employed by defendant from January 1, 1998 to July 

5, 2001, documents (including but not limited to electronic/computer generated documents and 

data: 

a. Name and i.d. number 

b. Gender 

c. Job title history 

d. Job grade or classification history 

e. Salary history, including weekly gross earnings during this period. 

f. Date ofhire 

g. Date of termination, if applicable. 

h. Job history, including promotion, transfer, demotion, advancement or change 

in job classification, performance evaluations, including for each such transaction the date(s) 

such action was taken and a description of the action. 

i. Job application history 

j. Disciplinary history, including all warning notices, and dates thereof. 

k. Selection and/or participation in any training programs, internships, 

apprenticeship programs. 

1. Receipt of any certifications, special qualifications and awards." 

This request mirrors one that was the subject of a discovery dispute last year, with the 

difference being that the earlier request pertained to people employed after July 5,2001. After 

the court ordered production, the parties ultimately compromised in March 2006 about what 

would be produced in satisfaction of that request, although they continue to disagree about the 

implementation of the production. Plaintiffs now suggest that they would accept, in satisfaction 

of the current request for data about people employed before July 5,2001, the same categories 

of information they agreed to accept with respect to those employed after July 5, 2001. 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 20 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 4 of 11 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

In its initial response to this request, defendant objected to Request No. 6 on various 

grounds, including that the request does not sufficiently define the documents and categories of 

employees to which it applies and that the request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms 

"documents," "gender," "job history," and "job grade or classification history." Defendant also 

objected on grounds of extreme overbreadth, privacy rights, excessive subparts, and violation of 

the compromise agreement concerning the earlier request. In their moving papers plaintiffs 

reject all of these objections and note that the March 2006 agreement only applied to post- July 

5, 2001 employees. 

In its opposition to this aspect of the motion, defendant presses three main arguments: 

overbreadth, violation of the compromise, and burden. The court first addresses the March 

2006 compromise, and concludes that any agreement between the parties on this subject was 

never presented to the court, and therefore the court declines to interject itself into that aspect of 

the parties' dispute. As for overbreadth and burden, defendant asserts that it would require one 

month of manpower to retrieve this data from an outdated computer system. However, this 

estimate comes from defendant's counsel, not from a sworn declaration provided by a 

representative in a position to accurately estimate the burden. Defendant cannot convince this 

court to be sympathetic to its claims of burden and practical hardship when they are based on 

bare assertions with no competent evidence to back them up. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED 

as to this document request. Plaintiffs may, at their discretion, choose to accept only those 

categories of data covered by the March 2006 agreement. 

B. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition 

In March 2005 plaintiffs requested certain computer-readable personnel data concerning 

those persons who worked for defendant after July 5, 2001. The parties eventually worked out 

a compromise about the subcategories of personnel data that defendant would produce in 

satisfaction of this request. In November 2006, this court ordered defendant to produce a Rule 

30(b)(6) representative to testify about the computer data, as plaintiffs had encountered 

obstacles in interpreting the data, including the various codes used in the data. Despite this 

order, defendant did not produce a deposition witness who knew all of the codes. 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 21 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-OOO47-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 5 of 11 

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 

Defendant produced Rob White as its representative for this deposition. Plaintiffs were 

dissatisfied with Mr. White's inability to explain the codes, and plaintiffs were also unhappy to 

learn that a group of employees (the Brawley site employees) had apparently been excluded 

from the computer data. Plaintiffs now move for a sworn supplement to this Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition that (1) informs plaintiffs of the meaning of all job classification codes, commodity 

codes, location codes, and disciplinary codes; and (2) explains the exclusion of the Brawley 

employees (in effect, plaintiffs seek the Brawley data). 

1. Computer Codes 

At the hearing, defendant admitted that there exists a written description of all job 

classification codes, commodity codes, location codes, and disciplinary codes, and lamely 

explained that it had not been turned over at the time of Mr. White's deposition because 

defendant was "not sure that was part of the deposition notice to bring along documents." 

However, defendant agreed to turn over a copy of these definitions promptly. 

2. Brawley Employees 

Plaintiffs bring to the court's attention the fact that information on workers employed at 

the Brawley worksite has been excluded from the electronic data produced pursuant to the 

parties' March 2006 compromise. Plaintiffs first learned about this exclusion in November 

2006 at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 

Defendant counters that no data has been "excluded." Defendant states that it only 

included data pertaining to locations that are mentioned in the complaint, and that Brawley is 

not one of those locations. Plaintiffs reply that there is nothing in the complaint or in the court's 

class certification order that excludes the Brawley district. 

The court rejects the semantic quibbling involved in trying to determine if the Brawley 

data was "excluded" or simply "not included." It is undisputed that the Brawley location is a 

part of defendant's operations, and this litigation concerns defendant as a whole, not individual 

worksites. The court finds no basis for defendant to distinguish among its locations in 

producing data required in discovery. Defendant must supplement its prior data production in 

order to provide plaintiffs with data concerning all of its worksites, whether or not they are 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 22 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 6 of 11 

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 

mentioned in the complaint. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to the sworn supplement to the 

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. If necessary, plaintiffs may conduct an additional 30(b)(6) 

deposition. 

C. Requests for Admissions 

Plaintiffs served defendant with several Requests to Admit Facts. Plaintiffs also served 

an Interrogatory and a Request to Produce for all documents not previously produced which 

provide the basis for any denial of any of the Requests to Admit. In the following pages, when 

this court orders defendant to admit or deny a certain request, the court also intends for 

defendant to respond appropriately to the accompanying interrogatory and request for 

production. 

1. Request No. 1 

Plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "During the period from January 1, 1998 

through January 1, 2005, defendant did not employ any women as permanent forepersons (ie., 

persons employed in the foreperson job for a period exceeding 30 days) with responsibilities 

over agricultural employees who worked for defendant." Defendant served numerous 

objections, none of which the court finds persuasive. First, the court has already addressed 

defendant's contention that discovery should be limited to the period of liability. Defendant 

also contends that the request calls for an expert or legal opinion, and that plaintiffs have 

sufficient information to be able to answer the question themselves. Neither of these 

contentions is valid. The worst objection, however, is defendant's assertion that it cannot 

respond because it chooses not to accept plaintiffs' definition of a "permanent foreperson." This 

is a prime example of the obfuscation that characterizes defendant's discovery responses. The 

court orders defendant to accurately and reasonably respond to this request, noting any 

necessary qualifiers. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to this request. 

2. Request No. 2 

Plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "Prior to January 1, 1998, defendant did 

not employ any women as permanent forepersons (ie., persons employed in the foreperson job 

for a period exceeding 30 days) with responsibilities over agricultural employees who worked 

6 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 23 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 7 of 11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

]7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

for defendant." Defendant asserts the same objections to this request as it does to Request No. 

1, and the court has the same opinions about those objections. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED 

as to this request. 

3. Requests Nos. 3 8 

In Request No. 3, plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "For each year from 

January 1, 1998 through December 31,2001, the percentage of defendant's agricultural workers 

who were women was never less than 15% of the total agricultural workers employed by 

defendant." Requests 4 though 8 ask the same thing, but substitute different percentages: 20%, 

25%, 30%, 35%, and 40%, respectively. 

Defendant mainly objects to the term "total agricultural workers employed by 

defendant," contending the term is awkward and not discernable. Defendant argues that the 

percentages could vary depending on whether the question was calling for annual, quarterly, 

monthly, weekly, or daily calculations. Thus, once again defendant exploits a perceived 

ambiguity in plaintiffs' requests and relies on that ambiguity to wiggle its way out of any 

response whatsoever. The court concludes that defendant has an obligation to make a 

reasonable response to this request, explaining the basis for its calculations if necessary. 

Defendant also objects that these requests call for expert or legal conclusions, and that 

plaintiffs should be able to do these calculations themselves. Given the past difficulties 

plaintiffs have had in accessing uncorrupted data in the possession of defendant, the court 

concludes that it is preferable for defendant to do the calculations. Plaintiffs' motion is 

GRANTED as to these requests. 

4. Request No. 16 

Plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "For the period from January 1, 1998 

through the present, defendant has not acted to validate that its practices and procedures used 

•vith respect to the selection of forepersons are job-related." Plaintiffs explain that the issue of 

job-relatedness is at the center of many disparate impact employment discrimination cases. 

Defendant responds to this request with the familiar barrage of objections based on 

relevance, time period, legal conclusion, etc. Defendant also contends that the phrase 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 24 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 8 of 11 

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 

"defendant has not acted to validate that its practices and procedures used with respect to the 

selection of forepersons are job-related" is too ambiguous to be intelligible. The goal is to 

comply with discovery obligations, not avoid them, and the court believes defendant is 

practicing avoidance. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to this request. 

D. Deposition of John D'Arrigo 

Plaintiffs seek to depose the company's president, John D'Arrigo, but the company 

objects that this deposition would be unreasonably burdensome and duplicative and that the 

plaintiffs' sole motive is harassment. 

Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party 

seeking to block a deposition must carry a "heavy burden" and make a "strong showing." 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). "Courts are sometimes willing 

to protect high-level corporate officers from depositions when the officer has no first-hand 

knowledge of the facts of the case or where the officer's testimony would be repetitive." First 

United Methodist Church of San Jose v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., No. C-95-2243 DLJ, 1995 

WL 566026, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 1995). "However, where a corporate officer has first 

hand-knowledge of important, relevant, and material facts in the case the deposition should be 

allowed." Id. 

Plaintiffs argue that Mr. D'Arrigo should be made available for two reasons. First, he 

can testify about company policy and practice relating to the advancement of female employees, 

as well as other personnel-related subjects. Second, he has had some direct involvement in the 

claim of one of the named plaintiffs. Plaintiff Zamora wrote a letter to Mr. D'Arrigo seeking a 

private meeting with him about her desire to become a foreperson. Although it does not appear 

that Mr. D'Arrigo chose to respond or further involve himself in Ms. Zamora's situation, 

plaintiffs argue that they should be allowed to question Mr. D'Arrigo about his understanding of 

the complaint and his response. 

Defendant argues that other managerial employees would be better witnesses concerning 

personnel issues, as Mr. D'Arrigo is not involved in day-to-day decisions about promoting 

employees to foreperson positions. Defendant goes so far as to claim that "Mr. D'Arrigo is not 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 25 of 28
Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 9 of 11 

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 

responsible for overseeing how company policies or practices are carried out by supervisory 

level employees." As for Ms. Zamora's letter, defendant insists that Mr. D'Arrigo merely 

forwarded the letter to his Labor Relations Manager and had no further involvement. 

Both sides present rational arguments, but defendant has the burden of showing why 

relevant discovery should not go forward. Defendant has submitted no affidavit from Mr. 

D'Arrigo swearing that he has no information about company equal employment and personnel 

policies or that he had nothing to do with Ms. Zamora's situation. See General Star Indemnity 

Co. v. Platinum Indemni•yLtd., 210 F.R.D. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (affidavit required); Thomas 

v. Int'l Business Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 483 (10th Cir. 1995) (affidavit submitted). It is 

reasonable to expect that a company president would have substantial knowledge about basic 

company policy and practice, especially something as basic as how people get promoted. 

Plaintiffs are entitled to test Mr. D'Arrigo's knowledge in a deposition, rather than relying on the 

assertions of defendant's lawyers. Se.__•e In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan, No. MDL 1394- 

GAF(RCx), 2002 WL 32155478, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2002) (plaintiffs entitled to test a 

claim of lack of knowledge by deposing the witness). Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in this 

respect. Mr. D'Arrigo shall appear for a deposition at a time mutually convenient for the 

parties, no later than March 27, 2007. 

ORDER 

This motion and the three prior discovery motions in this case lead this court to 

conclude that defendant is more intent on dodging its discovery obligations than on complying 

with them. Defendant takes refuge in the claimed ambiguity of plaintiffs' discovery requests, 

quibbling over terminology and demonstrating little interest in reaching actual understanding. 

Instead of conscientiously seeking clarification, defendant has a habit of simply refusing to 

answer. The court rejects defendant's chronic resort to pettifogging objections. 

// 

// 

// 

9 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 26 of 28
5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 10 of t 1 

Plaintiffs' motion is granted in its entirety. Defendants are to respond appropriately to 

each component of this motion by March 27, 2007, except for the written explanation of 

computer codes, which must be produced forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 15, 2007 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

10 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 27 of 28
1 

2 

3 

4 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 11 of 11 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO: 

James Gerard Bradtke jgbvjd@aol.com, gikm@aol.com 

Annabelle Cortez-Gonzalves agcortez@ufwmail.com, 

Geoffrey F. Gega ggega@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com, jgomez@cookbrown.com, svaudreuil@cookbrown.com 

Mario G. Martinez mariomtz@ufwmail.com 

Stephen G. Seliger SSeligerl@aol.com, 

Regina Silva rsilva@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com 

Paul Strauss pstrauss@lawmbg.com, ldavis@lawmbg.com; slegenza@lawmbg.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not 

registered under the Court's ECF system. 

Dated: 3/15/07 

/s/ JMM 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd 

11 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 151 Filed 04/03/07 Page 28 of 28