Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-filed 4/25/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THOMAS LEONARD, et al., individually and

on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, et al,

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-00829 JW (HRL)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO STAY

DEPOSITIONS

On April 18, 2006, the court heard plaintiffs' motions to compel discovery and to stay

depositions. Defendant Bimbo Bakeries ("Bimbo") opposed the motions. 

At the hearing, it appeared that the parties might be able to resolve the discovery dispute

through further meet and confer efforts. The court ordered the parties to do so, and then submit

declarations detailing the issues that had been resolved and those that remained for the court's

determination. The court continued the hearing until April 25, 2006.

On April 24, 2006, the court received a declaration from plaintiffs' counsel stating that

the parties had reached a comprehensive agreement which resolved all the issues set forth in

plaintiffs' motion to compel. The only issue not resolved was plaintiffs' request for worker's

compensation job descriptions relating to the named plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs agreed to

take this request off the table for the time being without waiving any right to compel production

at a later date.

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 140 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Pursuant to these representations, the court denies plaintiffs' motion as moot. The

hearing set for April 25, 2006 is vacated.

Plaintiffs also moved to stay depositions of the named plaintiffs until defendant had

completed the production of personnel information pursuant to this motion to compel. 

Defendant stated in its opposition papers that it did not oppose the stay of the

depositions until this motion is resolved. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to stay depositions is

also denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/25/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 140 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Elizabeth Jean Carroll betsy.carroll@bingham.com, suga.ikeda@bingham.com 

Carolyn Blecha Hall carolyn.hall@bingham.com, carey.groom@bingham.com 

Wendy M. Lazerson wendy.lazerson@bingham.com 

Dennis Frank Moss dennisfmoss@yahoo.com, secretary@smbhblaw.com 

Rebecca Sobie rsobie@smbhblaw.com, 

Robert Ira Spiro ispiro@smbhblaw.com, secretary@smbhblaw.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered under the Court's ECF system.

Dated: 4/25/06

 /s/ RNR 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 140 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 3