Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00750-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN T. GALLAGHER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:05-cv-00750-AWI-SMS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER re:

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION RE: SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE [ORDER] (Doc. 30)

The Court hereby responds to plaintiff’s concerns as set

forth in his Request for Clarification, filed February 3, 2006:

A. ‘.....[I]t is plaintiff’s understanding that his request

that the scope of discovery was to be limited only to the breach

of contract allegations and this request was granted. It is

plaintiff’s understanding that the plaintiff’s request for a

denial of discovery on the underlying complaint regarding the

Title VII allegations was granted due to the fact that discovery

had already been conducted on these claims.”

Further, “It is plaintiff’s understanding that the only

exception imposed regarding this matter, was if the defendant was

Case 1:05-cv-00750-AWI -SMS Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

unable to retain a copy of any of the prior discovery items in

the plaintiff’s possession, and then the plaintiff would assist

defendant counsel and provided [sic] him with a copy.”

Discovery may be conducted as to all contested facts

and legal issues as set forth in the Scheduling Conference Order,

filed January 31, 2006 (Doc. 29). The fact that plaintiff and

counsel for defendant agree that “[A]ll other facts” are

contested, other than the three (3) as set forth on page -4-.

Lines 21-26 is problematic for the Court. What, indeed, are the

contested facts? If, as argued by the defendant on page -10- of

the Joint Scheduling Report, filed January 19, 2006 (Doc. 27),

the “.....plaintiff intends to pursue Title VII claims in this

District Court case” this Court agrees that discovery is

appropriate. For example, if plaintiff’s focus/goal is to set

aside the settlement agreement because an impasse is reached

regarding the agreement(s) reached, the case is not resolved and

it is probable that the entirety of the Title VII claims are at

issue. If, too, the dispute focuses on the value of plaintiff’s

underlying Title VII case, thought to be settled, then discovery

would be allowed as to any damages claimed. 

Again, the Court has no way of knowing what the parties

believe all those other facts are that remain disputed. With

regard to legal issues, all those set forth in the Scheduling

Conference Order on page -5-, lines 3-24 are contested and are

subject to discovery in this action. 

Regarding plaintiff’s argument that prior discovery

from the administrative action is to be used in the place of

conducting any further discovery in this action, this Court did

Case 1:05-cv-00750-AWI -SMS Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

not so direct. Having no knowledge what discovery was conducted

in the administrative matter, the Court is at a loss to agree or

disagree. Rather, if and when defendant serves discovery

requests, plaintiff should meet and confer with counsel for

defendant to attempt to reach an agreement regarding the

sufficiency of previously conducted discovery. The Court will

assist in reaching a conclusion, but only after a meet and confer

has been conducted in good faith. A cautionary point: Discovery

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may well be different

and/or more broad or thorough than that allowed for in an

administrative process. It remains to be seen whether any

requested discovery by defendant is duplicative or not. 

Certainly, in an effort to conserve resources, it would make

little sense to recreate the same discovery already conducted on

identical issues. But, again, the parties need to meet and

confer in this regard. 

The Court did not, though, limit discovery to

contractual issues. In fact, this Court is not at all sure that

contractual issues are the sole factual and legal issues in this

lawsuit, if at all at issue here. There is a separate body of

legal opinions regarding the enforceability of settlement

agreements; and, it remains to be seen whether a settlement

agreement reached in a venue other than this court satisfies all

the requirements to be enforced within the confines of this

lawsuit. 

B. “...there were several items that had been ruled upon

during the administrative hearing by the judge that concerned

evidentiary items. Plaintiff had requested that those

Case 1:05-cv-00750-AWI -SMS Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

evidentiary rulings would stand as outlined [sic] the joint

scheduling report.”

Administrative law judges’ rulings in administrative

hearings are not binding on this court. However, to the extent

any given issue has been fully briefed and considered, and if the

identical issue is presented to this Court, due respect will be

paid to the work performed by the administrative law judge in

reaching this Court’s decision. During the scheduling conference

held in this matter of January 31, 2006, which was not held on

the record and typically is not in this court, this Court did not

rule on plaintiff’s request that all administrative law

evidentiary rulings “stand” and does not now so rule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00750-AWI -SMS Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 4 of 4