Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829-13/pdf.json

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

---

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 

SF/21686113.2 Case No. C05 00829 HRL 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER FOR 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR FULL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISCOVERY 

Bingham McCutchen LLP 

WENDY M. LAZERSON (SBN 97285) 

CAROLYN B. HALL (SBN 212311) 

1900 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223 

Telephone: (650) 849-4400 

Facsimile: (650) 849-4800 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. 

and GEORGE WESTON BAKERIES, INC. 

IRA SPIRO (SBN 67641) 

DENNIS F. MOSS (SBN 77512) 

KATHERINE J. ODENBREIT (SBN 184619) 

Spiro Moss Barness Harrison & Barge LLP 

11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90064 

Telephone: (310) 235-2468 

Facsimile: (310) 235-2456 

E-mail:ispiro@smbhblaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION 

THOMAS LEONARD, CHARLIE BRADARIC, 

GARY HOSKINS, LARRY BRIAN NEWMAN, 

JR., CHRIS HERR, and WILLIAM F. 

HARRISON, each of them individually, and on 

behalf of: all others similarly situated, the general 

public, and similarly situated current and former 

employees of Defendants., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., BESTFOODS 

BAKING COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendants. 

No. C05 00829 HRL 

CLASS ACTION AND FLSA 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

Assigned To The Honorable James 

Ware 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CROSSMOTIONS FOR FULL OR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

DISCOVERY 

Complaint filed: February 25, 2005 

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 148 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 149 Filed 09/21/06 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 

SF/21686113.2 2 Case No. C05 00829 HRL 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER FOR 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR FULL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RECITALS

Plaintiffs and Defendants, being all the parties of record in this action, stipulate to 

an order as set forth in the “STIPULATION” portion of this document below, based on the 

following circumstances: 

A. The Parties have been heavily engaged in discovery in preparation for 

cross-motions for full or partial summary judgment (“the motions”). The Court ordered the 

filing of such motions following the first case management conference. Presently, the motions 

are required to be filed by October 3, 2006, pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2006 order upon 

stipulation. Although Defendants have been able to complete the depositions of seven named 

Plaintiffs and opt-ins in this matter within the seven hours allotted by Rule 30(d)(2) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants contend they were unable to complete the 

depositions of two Plaintiffs, Charlie Bradaric and Thomas Leonard, within seven hours, and 

Defendants have requested additional sessions of these two depositions. Defendants have also 

requested to take two additional depositions, of opt-ins Stephen Jordan and Kent Rice, to be 

taken by Defendants before the filing of the motions, and Defendants proposed a continuance of 

the filing and hearing dates for the motions in order to have sufficient time to take those 

depositions and, if Defendants so choose, to use them in the motions. Plaintiffs, on the condition 

that there be no further discovery by Defendants before the filing of the motions and that the 

nature of Defendants’ motions be clarified, have agreed to Defendants’ proposals, the terms of 

the agreement being set forth in the stipulation below. 

B. Defendants believe the two additional depositions and the additional 

sessions of the two other depositions are necessary for their preparation for the motions. One of 

the deposition sessions referred to above was already scheduled for September 6, 2006, but for 

reasons that are disputed, it did not go forward. If the stipulation is ordered, the number of 

depositions to be taken by Defendants before the filing of the motions will exceed the limit 

provided for in Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by one only, i.e., a total of 

11 depositions, and the seven hour/one day limit on depositions will be exceeded in two 

depositions only. 

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 148 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 149 Filed 09/21/06 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 

SF/21686113.2 3 Case No. C05 00829 HRL 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER FOR 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR FULL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

C. These motions are of great importance, inasmuch as they are intended by 

the moving parties to be dispositive of some or all the issues in the case. In light of this, the 

parties wish to cooperate in allowing each other ample time for preparation of moving, 

opposition and reply papers. The parties believe this can best be accomplished by establishing 

the briefing schedule set out below. The schedule also takes into account the great difficulty of 

briefing and marshalling the evidence for such important motions during the holiday season. 

(The hearing date for these motions was initially set for July 24, 2006. It was continued to 

October 16, 2006 pursuant to stipulation and order, entered into partly because of additional time 

needed for a motion to compel discovery, which was resolved by mutual agreement. It was 

continued to October 3, 2006, pursuant to the Court’s August 21, 2006 order upon stipulation.) 

D. The deadlines in the proposed scheduling order for filing the motions, 

oppositions, and replies all conform with this Court’s Local Rules providing for the timing of 

motions, oppositions and replies, Local Rules 7-2(a) and 7-3(a) and (c). 

STIPULATION

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED by Plaintiffs and Defendants, being all 

parties of record to this action, that the Court order as follows: 

1. The cross-motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment 

shall be filed and served no later than January 16, 2007, the papers in opposition to the motions 

shall be filed and served no later than February 6, 2007, the papers in reply to the oppositions 

shall be filed and served no later than February 19, 2007, and the hearing on the motions shall 

take place on March 5, 2007. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment or partial summary 

judgment shall be based on the exemptions or exceptions from the following: overtime, 

minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and/or alleged recordkeeping violations, which 

Defendants have pled in their answer to the first amended complaint. 

2. Before the above deadline for the filing of the motions, Defendants shall 

be permitted to take the depositions of Kent Rice and Stephen Jordan, and to take additional 

deposition sessions of Charlie Bradaric and Thomas Leonard totaling seven hours each unless 

the Court orders otherwise, but Defendants shall take no other depositions nor propound any 

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 148 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 149 Filed 09/21/06 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 

SF/21686113.2 4 Case No. C05 00829 HRL 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER FOR 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR FULL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

other discovery before the filing of the parties’ motions. Plaintiffs currently do not have plans to 

take any additional depositions prior to the filing of the parties’ motions, however, Defendants 

recognize that Plaintiffs have taken six of ten allotted depositions to date. 

DATED: September 19, 2006 Spiro Moss Barness Harrison & Barge, LLP 

By: /s/ 

Ira Spiro 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Bingham McCutchen LLP 

By: /s/ 

Carolyn B. Hall 

Attorneys for Defendants 

[proposed] ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED AS STATED IN THE ABOVE STIPULATION. 

Dated: 

 JAMES WARE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 148 Filed 09/19/2006 Page 4 of 4

09/21/2006

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 149 Filed 09/21/06 Page 4 of 4