Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00688/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00688-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

At the request of counsel, the Court held an informal telephone conference to clarify the meet 

and confer requirements for filing a motion for summary judgment set forth in the scheduling order 

(Doc. 41 at 3-4). Based upon this conference, the Court ORDERS:

1. No later than March 18, 2016, counsel for Drilltek SHALL provide to other counsel1, a 

“file-ready” proposed joint statement of facts which includes all material facts upon which the motion 

is based. The proposed statement of facts SHALL include citation to evidence, though it need not 

provide the evidence cited;

2. No later than March 25, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff SHALL notify Drilltek’s counsel 

which facts are undisputed. This facts that are not disputed will constitute the “joint statement of 

 

1 The moving and opposing party SHALL “cc” responses to Enterprise Drilling Fluids, Inc. Enterprise Drilling Fluids, Inc. 

has indicated that it does not take a position contrary to that of Drilltek. If this has changed and Enterprise now intends to 

oppose Drilltek’s motion, Enterprise SHALL immediately alert other counsel of this fact and will be bound by all deadlines 

set for Plaintiff related to this motion.

KENNETH WILLIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ENTERPRISE DRILLING FLUIDS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00688 - JLT

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL CONFERENCE

(Doc. 43)

Case 1:15-cv-00688-JLT Document 45 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

undisputed facts. The facts that are disputed—if they are, indeed, material to the motion—must be 

included in Drilltek’s separate statement of undisputed facts filed along with the motion and the joint 

statement of facts;

3. Driltek’s SHALL file its motion for summary judgment no later than April 1, 20162;

4. When the opposition is filed, it may be that Plaintiff no longer disputes some facts that 

were included in Drilltek’s separate statement. In that event, Plaintiff should note this when responding 

to Drilltek’s separate statement of undisputed facts. As to the facts that remain disputed, Plaintiff must 

cite to evidence to support that a dispute exists. Plaintiff may also file his own separate statement of 

undisputed facts with the opposition, if he believes that there are other material facts which make 

granting the motion legally impossible;

5. If Plaintiff files his own separate statement of undisputed facts, Drilltek SHALL

respond to the statement at the time it files the reply and indicate which of the opponent’s facts are 

disputed and which are not. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

In the event that the modification to the filing date causes it to be impossible for Plaintiff to file his opposition timely, as 

soon as this impossibility is known, Plaintiff SHALL seek an informal conference so the Court can adjust the opposition 

deadline. The Court does not intend that any extension granted here should prejudice Plaintiff but, if at all possible, the 

Court encourages Plaintiff to meet the deadline for filing the opposition, previously set.

Case 1:15-cv-00688-JLT Document 45 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 2