Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01428/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01428-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

ERIKA MORALES and ANONYMOUS )

PLAINTIFF’S ONE THROUGH EIGHT )

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors )

v. )

)

)

ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, )

et al. )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Case No. 1:07-cv-01428 LJO JLT

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR A

PROTECTIVE ORDER STRIKING

CLAIMANTS 19, 20 AND 21 AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

SET A DEADLINE FOR NAMING ALL

OTHER CLAIMANTS 

(DOC 144)

Defendants (referred collectively as “ABM”) seek a protective orderstriking claimant 19, 20 and

21. Alternatively, ABM moves the Court for an order setting a firm deadline for naming of any

additional claimants. (Doc 144) Plaintiff US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

opposes this motion. On February 1, 2010, the Court heard argument regarding this motion. The Court

has read and considered the pleadings and arguments of counsel and makes the following ruling.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 28, 2007, the EEOC initiated this action against Defendants ABM Industries, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 156 Filed 02/05/10 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

and ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. (Doc. 1.) ABMNC was added as a defendant through the First

Amended Complaint filed on July 17, 2009. (Doc. 118.) The EEOC’s amended complaint alleges

unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Id.) In particular, the amended complaint charges that

ABMNC engaged in a pattern and practice of subjecting Erika Morales and a class of others similarly

situated to her to a sexually harassing, hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment

at various ABMNC work sites. (Id.) The complaint alleges further that ABMNC failed to exercise

reasonable care to prevent and correct the sexually harassing behavior promptly. (Id.) Finally, the

complaint alleges that Erika Morales and others similarly situated were constructively discharged for

complaining about or rebuking the sexual harassment. (Id.)

Through the efforts of the EEOC, the number of disclosed claimants has grown to 21. At the

hearing on this motion, counsel for the EEOC admitted that “8 to 10" months ago, the EEOC sent letters

to over 4,000 employees and former employees of the defendants for the purpose of identifying

additional claimants. The most recent disclosure of claimants was on September 30, 2009, when the

EEOC included them in their Fourth Supplemental Disclosure. In the joint statement, the EEOC asserts

that it has continued to identify claimants and seems to take the position that it may continue to name

claimants until the close of discovery. At oral argument on this motion, the EEOC indicated that they

had identified one or more claimants although the location of at least one of them was not known.

Undoubtedly the EEOC named claimants 19, 20 and 21 in sufficient time to allow ABM to take

their depositions and to conduct discovery as to their claims. On the other hand, the EEOC does not

concede the need for a deadline for naming additional claimants but offers no explanation as to how

ABM would be able to discover the cases of these new claimants that would be named on the eve of the

close of discovery nor any real plan to mitigate the prejudice to ABM that this would cause.

At oral argument, counsel for ABM stipulated that claimants 19, 20 and 21 need not be stricken

if the Courtset a deadline for naming additional claimants. The Court accepts this stipulation and deems

the motion for a protective orderto be withdrawn. Likewise, the Court agrees with ABM that a deadline

for naming additional claimants must be set.

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 156 Filed 02/05/10 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

Given the representation of counsel for the EEOC at the time of hearing that it has already identified additional 1

claimants, the Court orders that it immediately disclose to ABM these claimants and the factual basis for these claims.

3

Analysis

A. Discovery overview

As oft-repeated, the purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and

more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent,” United

States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in

dispute. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).

The unwitting course that this case has taken, has placed ABM in an untenable position. It

cannot properly conduct its discovery efforts or its defensive strategy given the “moving target”

presented by the EEOC continuing to name additional claimants. Although the EEOC has a duty to

"identify all the claimants affected by discrimination, and . . . [to] 'investigate, litigate, and, if possible

settle claims,'" EEOC v. Mr. Gold, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 100, 103 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), the EEOC’s mandate is

not unlimited nor are "courts . . . powerless to prevent undue hardship to the defendant." Mr. Gold, 223

F.R.D. at 103. Although the Court finds that adding claimants 19, 20 and 21 was done in a reasonable

time, the time for discovery must end and, consequently, naming additional claimants too must end.

Therefore, ABM’s motion to set a deadline to name additional claimants is GRANTED. The Court

orders the EEOC to disclose any additional claimants, and to provide notice to ABM of the additional

claimants and the facts upon which these additional claims are based, as soon as they are known to the

EEOC but no later than February 12, 2010.1

As to claimants 19, 20 and 21 and any new claimant named on or before February 12, 2010,

ABM will be entitled to take the new claimant’s deposition. The EEOC is ordered to produce these

claimants for deposition on days that are convenient to the parties and, as necessary, on shortened notice.

These deponents may be required to produce documents at the time of their deposition. All of these

depositions must be completed no later than February 26, 2010.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Motion for Protective Order to Strike Claimants 19, 20 and 21 is

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 156 Filed 02/05/10 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

MOOT. The alternative Motion to Set a Deadline for Disclosure of Additional Claimants is GRANTED

as follows:

1. The EEOC is ordered disclose in writing any additional claimants to ABM and the facts

upon which these additional claims are based, as soon as they are known to the EEOC

but no later than February 12, 2010. 

2. As to any new claimant already known to the EEOC, the Court orders that disclose to

ABM in writing these claimants and the factual basis for these claims, within two court

days of the date of this order.

3. The EEOC is ordered to produce claimants 19, 20 and 21 and any new claimant named

on or before February 12, 2010, for deposition on a date that is convenient to the parties

but no later than February 26, 2010. As necessary, the EEOC is ordered to produce these

deponents on shortened notice. ABM may require the deponents to produce documents

at the time of deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01428-LJO-JLT Document 156 Filed 02/05/10 Page 4 of 4