Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00707-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191)

 StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com

HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336)

 HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com

MARCO A. PALAU (Bar No. 242340)

 MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730

Oakland, California 94612-3547

Telephone: (510) 832-9999

Facsimile: (510) 832-1101

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

DAVID A. ROSENFELD (SBN 058163)

drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net

WILLIAM A. SOKOL (SBN 72740)

bsokol@unioncounsel.net

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

Telephone: (510) 337-1001

Facsimile: (510) 337-1023

MILBERG LLP

JEFF S. WESTERMAN (SBN 94559)

jwesterman@milberg.com

SABRINA S. KIM (SBN 186242)

skim@milberg.com

NICOLE M. DUCKETT (SBN 198168)

nduckett@milberg.com

One California Plaza

300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 617-1200

Facsimile: (213) 617-1975

MARGARITA ROSALES and ANGELICA 

ROSALES, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

EL RANCHO FARMS, and DOES 1-20,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-0707-AWI-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 7
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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

I. INTRODUCTION

This action is one of six cases against grape growers in the Southern Central Valley 

assigned to Judge Ishii. The six cases were originally filed as one action but severed and filed 

individually by order of Judge Ishii. The scheduling orders for the six cases were set by Magistrate 

Judge Snyder, to whom these cases were formerly assigned until approximately March 14, 2011, 

and Judge Snyder treated the cases in a somewhat coordinated fashion.

During a discovery conference for a related case, Judge Snyder indicated that the Court 

was not opposed to providing reasonable extensions in any of the grapes cases. Judge Snyder 

indicated that the cases would likely not go to trial as scheduled given Judge Ishii’s extremely 

busy calendar, and that Judge Ishii was not opposed to extending case deadlines. Judge Snyder 

advised us that she would entertain requests for extensions and has stayed pertinent class 

certification and expert deadlines in Soto v. Castlerock, 1:09-cv-701 pending the resolution of 

discovery disputes among the parties in that case. According to Judge Snyder, the Castlerock 

action was meant to serve as a test case of sorts for the others with respect to scheduling. Based on 

Judge Snyder’s guidance it is plaintiffs’ counsel’s understanding that deadlines in this case would 

be extended, particularly given the circumstances of this case.

II. GOOD CAUSE FOR EXTENDING DEADLINES

The parties are currently engaged in exchange and review of documents that are being 

produced in response to discovery. However, certain issues have arisen over which the parties, 

through their counsel, are meeting and conferring. In particular, some of the information that has 

been produced and some information that has not yet been produced may be designated

confidential. As such, the parties are working on a draft of a stipulated and proposed protective 

order which they intend to finalize as soon as possible and present to the Court for approval. In 

addition, the parties are meeting and conferring over issues that pertain to the scope of the class 

and scope of discovery. The parties have agreed to resolve the documentary discovery issues prior 

to completing party depositions, and have also agreed that the production of documents should 

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 7
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

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

occur prior to the taking of depositions.

The parties met and conferred regarding defendant’s objections, and defendant has agreed 

to supplement its production. Plaintiffs have supplemented their production once, but have not 

completed their review of a sizeable file in a related bankruptcy case of a now defunct farm labor 

contractor used by defendant that may contain responsive documents. Depending on the review of 

this file, plaintiffs may supplement their production again. The parties have agreed to produce 

documents ahead of depositions and, accordingly, have taken the 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant 

and the depositions of plaintiffs off calendar until documents are exchanged. As such, the parties 

have mutually agreed to take previously-scheduled party depositions off calendar until 

documentary evidence is produced and counsel for the parties have adequate time to review and 

prepare.

Because the class period is very large, the class members are seasonal farmworkers, and 

the employment records of the class appear to be within the possession of various contractors used 

by defendant, it has been difficult for both parties to gather and produce all responsive discovery 

needed for certification. The fact that this case, originally filed in 2005, was inactive for purposes 

of discovery until about a year ago does not help matters, as people and evidence have become 

more difficult to locate with the passage of time.

III. STIPULATED EXTENSION OF DEADLINES

Given the status of discovery described above, the parties believe that certain upcoming 

deadlines should be extended. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend the 

following deadlines:

Current Deadline Proposed Deadline

Class Certification Filing: 4/1/11 9/9/11

Class Discovery: 2/1/11 8/1/11

Expert Discovery: 3/18/11 11/11/11

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 3 of 7
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

3

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing: 3/11/11 11/11/11

Dispositive Motion Filing: 8/19/11 4/16/12

Merits Discovery: 7/1/11 4/6/12

Settlement Conference Date: None

Pre-Trial Conference: 10/21/11, 8:30am 6/18/12

Trial Date: 12/6/11, 8:30am 8/20/12

DATED: March 22, 2011 MALLISON & MARTINEZ

By: /s/ Marco A. Palau

STAN S. MALLISON

HECTOR R. MARTINEZ

MARCO A. PALAU

JESSICA JUAREZ

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: March 22, 2011 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES

 By: /s/ Christian Howland 

CHRISTIAN HOWLAND

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 4 of 7
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 & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

ORDER

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause 

and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained,

. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule 

“if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . 

.[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the 

litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. 

Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the 

parties demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, 

notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could 

not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference 

. . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. 

The Court notes that several of the dates that the parties seek to modify, have already 

passed. Notably, the scheduling order issued in this case warned the parties, “If the parties 

determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met, counsel are 

ORDERED to notify the Court immediately so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation 

or by subsequent status conference.” (Doc. 21 at 12) Nevertheless, the parties offer no explanation 

why they failed to comply with this order and seek amendment of the deadlines before the date 

had passed.

Importantly, in Hardy v. County of El Dorado, the Court rejected a motion to extend the 

discovery cut-off, filed three days before the discovery cut-off, finding that this demonstrates a

lack of diligence. The Court held, “Indeed, requesting the Court to modify the Scheduling Order 

to extend the discovery cut-off date three days before the deadline does not constitute diligence.” 

Id., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75925, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008). Thus, it is unclear why the 

parties believed that their stipulation to amend these dates in the scheduling order, would be 

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 5 of 7
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 & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

granted. Moreover, though the parties indicate that they have conducted some discovery, exactly 

what has been done and when it was done, is not explained. Thus, the Court has insufficient 

information to allow it to determine that the parties have diligently pursued discovery in this case. 

Finally, the Court is mindful that this case was filed nearly two years ago and it appears that very

little progress has been made in bringing this case to fruition.

Despite the lack of good cause shown, the factual information that has been provided in the 

stipulation makes clear that counsel has not met, and is unprepared to meet, the future deadlines in 

currently set in this case. The Court recognizes, given these circumstances, that requiring 

compliance with these dates would work a hardship to the parties and could unfairly disadvantage 

plaintiffs’ ability to prepare their motion for class certification by the April 1, 2011 deadline. On 

the other hand, many of the dates proposed by the parties are unworkable. For example, most 

ignore the amount of time that has passed since the filing of this action. Also, the date proposed

for the dispositive motion filing date leaves insufficient time for the Court to hear and decide the 

motion before the proposed pretrial conference date.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the 

stipulation to amend the scheduling order as follows:

New Deadline

Class Certification Filing: 9/9/11

Class Discovery: 6/3/11

Expert Discovery: 7/11/11

Merits Discovery: 2/3/12

Non-Dispositive Motion Filing: 2/17/12

Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing: 3/19/12

Dispositive Motion Filing: 4/6/12

Dispositive Motion Hearing: 5/21/12

Pre-Trial Conference: 7/11/12

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 6 of 7
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 & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

1939 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 730

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3547

Trial Date: 9/11/12

Counsel is admonished to diligently pursue discovery of this matter and to conscientiously adhere 

to the amended deadlines. The Court will not again modify case dates that have already passed. 

Moreover, no further amendments to the scheduling order will be granted absent a showing 

of exceptional good cause and only upon a showing that counsel has acted diligently.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 7 of 7