Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01902/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01902-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 49:1903 Petition to enforce administrative summons

---

Request for Dismissal; 

[Proposed] Order w. Jurisdiction Retention 

EEOC v. Coppage, Owyang, and DDS

 

1

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

ANNA Y. PARK, SBN 164242 

MICHAEL J. FARRELL, SBN 266553 

ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES, SBN 205412 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Telephone: (213) 894-1068 

Fascimile: (213) 894-1301 

E-Mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF 

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, 

CYNTHIA COPPAGE and LANE 

OWYANG. 

 Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:08-cv-01902-LJO-SMS 

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDER 

WITH RETENTION OF 

JURISDICTION 

HON. LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or 

“Commission”) filed the present pre-litigation subpoena enforcement action to 

seek enforcement of testimony subpoena numbers 08-09 and 08-10. EEOC issued 

the subpoenas as part of its administrative investigation into various employee 

charges of discrimination filed against the Department of Developmental Services 

(“DDS”). On March 5, 2009, after a hearing on the matter, the Court ordered 

Respondents DDS, Cynthia Coppage and Lane Owyang to comply with the 

Case 1:08-cv-01902-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2
Request for Dismissal; 

[Proposed] Order w. Jurisdiction Retention 

EEOC v. Coppage, Owyang, and DDS

 

2

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

subpoenas. [Doc. No. 17]. The Court further ordered DDS and its counsel not to 

interfere with EEOC’s investigation of the charges underlying the present action; 

not to interfere, threaten or cause criminal prosecution of any witness who 

cooperates with the EEOC; nor appear at EEOC interviews of witnesses not 

represented by DDS. 

DDS has, thus far, complied with the Court’s order. Because the EEOC’s 

administrative investigation remains open, however, the Court’s order is central to 

EEOC’s continued access to evidence that will facilitate a determination about the 

discrimination allegations. The Commission is mindful that the Court may not 

wish to maintain this action open during the presently undetermined amount of 

additional time needed to complete the EEOC’s administrative investigation. 

The EEOC, thus, requests dismissal of this matter without prejudice. EEOC 

further seeks the Court’s retention of jurisdiction over the action to effectuate the 

terms of the Court’s order. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

January 27, 2010 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

 By: _/s/ Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes____

 ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES 

 Attorneys for Petitioner 

ORDER

For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the above entitled subpoena 

enforcement action is dismissed without prejudice. It is further ordered that the 

Court will retain jurisdiction over the action for any contempt matters or to 

otherwise effectuate the terms of the Court’s order. The EEOC may seek 

enforcement of the Order with the undersigned District Court Judge. 

Date: _January 28, 2010__ _/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill__________ 

 HONORABLE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-01902-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2