Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01633-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GLENN FITE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-01633 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 23. This discovery 

dispute was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). The 

motion was initially set for hearing on the papers on October 19, 2022, before the undersigned. 

ECF No. 24. On October 19, 2022, the court vacated the hearing and ordered the parties to 

engage in additional meet and confer efforts, as it was clear from the joint statement that the meet 

and confer process had not been exhausted. ECF No. 29. The parties filed a revised joint 

statement on November 30, 2022. ECF No. 32. On December 6, 2022, defendant filed a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 33. That motion is set to be heard before the District 

Judge on January 17, 2023. 

 This is a putative class action alleging a single claim for relief: Violation of Unfair 

Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. ECF No. 1 at 10. 

The discovery cutoff is currently set for June 15, 2023. ECF No. 20. At issue in the pending 

Case 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC Document 35 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 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 

2 

motion for judgment on the pleadings are several matters that directly impact the scope of 

discovery, including plaintiff’s standing and the scope of the putative class. ECF No. 33 at 10-11. 

In light of the procedural posture of this case, the court has determined that it would be premature 

to rule on the pending discovery motion at this time. 

In the interest of judicial economy, the motion to compel (ECF No. 23) is DENIED 

without prejudice to re-filing after a ruling has been issued on the pending motion for judgment 

on the pleadings. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer following a ruling on the 

pending motion for judgment on the pleadings to determine whether a new motion to compel is 

necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 9, 2022 

Case 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC Document 35 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 2