Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02491/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02491-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:5(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

-1-

Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order 

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

JOAN A. MARKOFF 

Chief Counsel, Bar No. 121787 

FROLAN R. AGUILING 

Deputy Chief Counsel, Bar No. 235874 

JENNIFER M. GARTEN 

Labor Relations Counsel, Bar No. 232979 

DAVID D. KING 

Labor Relations Counsel, Bar No. 252074 

California Department of Human Resources 

State of California 

1515 S Street, North Building, Suite 400 

Sacramento, CA 95814-7243 

Telephone: (916) 324-0512 

Facsimile: (916) 323-4723 

E-mail: Jennifer.Garten@calhr.ca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RYAN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of 

those similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DR. JEFFREY BEARD, in his capacity as the 

Secretary of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-JFM

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 

TO COMPEL; STIPULATION RE: 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE; ORDER 

Hearing Date: May 28, 2014 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Magistrate Judge: Hon. Allison Claire 

Courtroom: 26, 8th Floor 

[Local Rule 251] 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE defendant DR. JEFFREY BEARD, in his capacity as the Secretary 

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, hereby withdraws the Notice of 

Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery. Electronic Case Filing (ECF) 93. Accordingly, 

defendant requests this Court remove from calendar the hearing on defendant’s motion to compel, 

currently set for May 28, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., without prejudice. 

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 95 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 5
-2-

Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order 

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

Defendant’s withdrawal is made pursuant to the Stipulation Re: Discovery Dispute as set 

forth below. 

DATED: May 20, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

 JOAN A. MARKOFF 

 Chief Counsel 

 FROLAN R. AGUILING 

 Deputy Chief Counsel 

By: /s/ Jennifer M. Garten 

 Jennifer M. Garten, Labor Relations Counsel 

Department of Human Resources 

Attorney for defendant Dr. Jeffrey Beard 

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 95 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 5
-3-

Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order 

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

STIPULATION RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

WHEREAS, the above-entitled case is a collective action brought by eighty-six individuals 

who have opted in to the action, alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

WHEREAS, the deadline to complete the second phase of discovery is June 18, 2014. 

WHEREAS, on November 26, 2013, defendant propounded Set One of Requests for 

Admissions (RFAs), upon twenty-two of the eighty-six plaintiffs who have opted in to the action. 

WHEREAS, on December 16, 2013, defendant propounded Set One of Requests for 

Production of Documents (RPDs) and Special Interrogatories (ROGs) upon the same twenty-two 

plaintiffs who received defendant’s RFAs (Set One of defendant’s RFAs, ROGs and RPDs 

hereinafter collectively referred to as “defendant’s discovery requests”). 

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, and following grant of several extensions of discovery 

deadlines, plaintiffs served responses to defendant’s discovery requests. 

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, and following a period of meet and confer, plaintiffs served 

supplemental discovery responses consisting of substantive responses to defendant’s discovery 

requests for ten of the twenty-two plaintiffs, and objections from the remaining twelve plaintiffs 

upon whom defendant’s discovery requests were made. Plaintiffs objected on the basis the ten 

plaintiffs who provided substantive responses was a “meaningful representative sample of the opt-in 

class for the purposes of discovery” and therefore defendant’s discovery requests to the remaining 

twelve plaintiffs were “unduly repetitive and impose[d] an unjust burden on the responding parties.” 

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2014, defendant noticed a motion to compel discovery responses, 

setting a hearing for May 28, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, defendant served RFAs upon fifty-four additional opt-in 

plaintiffs; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND 

BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT: 

1. Defendant hereby withdraws Set One of the RFAs defendant propounded upon the fiftyfour additional opt-in plaintiffs on May 13, 2014. 

2. Defendant will and hereby does withdraw its Motion to Compel Further Discovery, and 

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 95 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 5
-4-

Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order 

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

requests the Court to remove from calendar the hearing currently set for May 28, 2014 at 

10:00 a.m., without prejudice. 

3. Defendant may conduct ten depositions in addition to the ten depositions permitted by 

Rule 30(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. Plaintiffs shall provide substantive responses to defendant’s discovery requests for three 

of the twelve plaintiffs who had responded with only objections to defendant’s discovery 

requests on April 21, 2014. In the event an opt-in plaintiff who had previously provided 

substantive responses to defendant’s discovery requests communicates to defendant an 

intent to opt out of the conditionally certified class, or is otherwise dismissed from the 

action before the close of discovery, plaintiffs shall provide substantive responses to 

defendant’s discovery requests from an additional plaintiff. 

5. Plaintiffs agree that for purposes of any pre-trial dispositive motion proceeding, 

including, but not limited to, a potential motion for decertification or summary judgment, 

plaintiffs’ evidence used in support of plaintiffs’ position or argument shall be limited to 

testimonial or documentary evidence obtained from the plaintiffs who will have provided 

substantive responses to defendant’s discovery requests, or from the plaintiffs who will 

have been deposed by defendant, by the close of discovery. This provision does not 

prejudice plaintiffs’ ability to seek or use discovery obtained from defendant in support 

of plaintiffs’ position or argument in said pre-trial dispositive motion proceeding. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 95 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 5
-5-

Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel; Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute; Order 

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

SO STIPULATED: 

DATED: May 20, 2014 

/s/ Vincent D. Howard, Esquire 

(as authorized on May 16, 2014) 

Vincent D. Howard 

Gregory H.D. Alumit 

HOWARD LAW, PC 

/s/ Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esquire 

(as authorized on May 16, 2014) 

 Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. 

WILLIAMSON LAW FIRM, LLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Young and Class 

DATED: May 20, 2014 

 /s/ Jennifer M. Garten 

 Jennifer M. Garten, Labor Relations Counsel 

Department of Human Resources 

Attorney for defendant Dr. Jeffrey Beard 

ORDER

 Having read the above joint stipulation regarding discovery dispute, and good cause 

appearing, it is hereby ordered that the above stipulation regarding discovery dispute is adopted and 

all parties must comply with the stipulation as set forth above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 20, 2014 

Case 2:11-cv-02491-KJM-AC Document 95 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 5