Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00297/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00297-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD REES, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

SOUZA’S MILK TRANSPORTATION )

CO., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-00297-LJO-SMS

ORDER BIFURCATING LIABILITY ISSUE

OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE MOTOR

CARRIERS SAFETY EXCEPTION

ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND

MONETARY SANCTIONS (DOC. 157) AND

DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF DISCOVERY ORDER

(DOC. 169) AND RESETTING HEARING,

OR, ALTERNATIVELY, A TELEPHONIC

STATUS CONFERENCE

Date: April 24, 2008

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 7

ORDER SETTING INTERIM DEADLINE

FOR COMPLETED PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS 

Date: April 4, 2008

ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE AND DIRECTING

SUBMISSION OF SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Date of Conference:

June 5, 2008

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 7

ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 8
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

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion for terminating

sanctions and for monetary sanctions, and Defendants’ crossmotion for modification of the discovery order. The matters

proceeded in the chambers of the undersigned Magistrate Judge and

off the record at the time previously set for the hearing on the

motions, January 25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Jerry Budin appeared

and participated on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Mr. David A. Dixon

appeared and participated on behalf of Defendants.

I. Bifurcation of the Proceedings

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the

disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both

the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992).

The Court may order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or of any issue in

furtherance of convenience, to avoid prejudice, or when separate

trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 42(b). Determination of a motion for separate trials is within

the Court’s sound discretion. Jinro America Inc. v. Secure

Investments, Inc., 266 F.3d 993, 998 (9 Cir. 2001). Factors th

customarily considered in the determination include convenience,

prejudice, judicial economy, risk of confusion, and separability

of issues. See Robert E. Jones, Gerald E. Rosen, William E.

Wegner, & Jeffrey S. Jones, Federal Civil Trials and Evidence,

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 8
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

2003 ed., § 4:492.

Here, in view of the Court’s recent ruling of December 14,

2007, on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication, and further

considering the parties’ progress in meeting and conferring

regarding the scope of document production relating to the motor

carrier safety exemption that should be required in light of that

ruling, the Court concludes that bifurcating liability issues,

and specifically, the applicability of the motor carrier safety

exemption, from the other issues in this action would be

convenient. After an extended off-record conference, the Court

discerns no objection to such bifurcation, and it is aware of no

claim of prejudice other than the impossibility of readiness for

the presently scheduled pretrial conference and court trial, a

matter which is remedied by vacating those dates. The issues are

severable, and the discovery related to each phase is to some

extent discrete. Determination of the liability issue or issues

may completely eliminate the need for adjudication of damages

issues, and, more directly, is likely to facilitate a meaningful

settlement discussion, which both parties desire. A settlement

conference will be set pursuant to counsel’s request. Thus,

bifurcation would further judicial economy and expedition. Some

minimal lessening of confusion of issues might result, but in

view of the nature of the action and the fact that the trial will

be a bench trial, this is not a significant factor here. 

After consideration of all these factors and after

conferring with the District Judge, the Court determines that

bifurcation is appropriate.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that the issue of liability,

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 8
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

including the applicability of the motor carrier safety

exemption, IS BIFURCATED from the other issues in the case, and

will be tried by the Court before other issues relating to

damages are tried. 

II. Dates for Production of Discovery, and Hearing or,

 in the Alternative, Telephonic Status Conference 

The hearing on the pending motions did not proceed. Instead,

counsel engaged in a lengthy, off-record session of meeting and

conferring in chambers with the Court concerning the pending

motions, a discovery plan, a settlement conference, and the scope

of discovery in this action. Because the recent ruling on the

motion for summary adjudication clarified legal issues concerning

the motor carriers safety exemption from liability, the scope of

discovery was again addressed and discussed. In an effort to

facilitate timely production of documents pertinent to the

applicability of the exemption and the Defendants’ liability, and

further in order to promote the sharing of data sufficient to

permit intelligent assessment of the risk of application or nonapplication of the exemption, and ultimately potential settlement

and/or trial of the case, counsel agreed to defer seeking an

immediate ruling on the pending motions for terminating sanctions

and modification of discovery orders. Counsel agreed to continue

to meet and confer concerning outstanding discovery consisting

principally of production of documents (requests 4 and 10

concerning the exemption, and request 3 concerning payroll

records throughout the potential period of liability).

Specifically, counsel for Defendant agreed to produce

documents pertinent to the exemption issue and a determination of 

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 8
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

5

the character of Defendant’s trucking as interstate or intrastate

commerce and, specifically the percentages thereof, in order to

facilitate assessment of the relative merits of the parties’

cases insofar as they involve the application of the motor

carriers safety exemption. Counsel discussed production of

general and specific documents, including some substantial and

sufficient sampling of specific, supporting documents such as,

but not limited to, bills of lading, in order to reflect fairly

the character of Defendant’s trucking; counsel discussed

production of documents concerning the total volume of business

(hauls and dollars), the percentage of business of some major

customers, and within those broader categories, the routes,

character of goods, destinations, and hauls. Counsel anticipated

a rolling course of production as part of a continuing effort to

meet and confer on the nature and extent of the production

required in order for the parties to be in a position to engage

in meaningful settlement discussions and thereafter, in the

absence of settlement, to proceed in an orderly course to trial

of all issues. The Court remains ready to assist the parties with

informal telephonic discovery conferences if needed.

Therefore, the parties ARE DIRECTED to continue to meet and

confer, and Defendants ARE DIRECTED TO COMPLETE PRODUCTION of all

documents responsive to requests 4 and 10 concerning the

applicability of the motor carrier safety exemption NO LATER THAN

APRIL 4, 2008. 

Further, based on the consent of counsel, and in the

exercise of its discretion to control its docket and to conserve

the resources of the Court and the parties, the Court CONTINUES

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 5 of 8
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

6

the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions and

monetary sanctions, as well as Defendant’s cross-motion for

modification of discovery orders, until April 24, 2008. It is not

anticipated that the Court will have a formal hearing on the

motions on that date; rather, a telephonic discovery status

conference will be held regarding the status of the discovery at

that time.

At the discovery conference held in chambers, Plaintiffs’

counsel stated that his immediate goal was the completion of

discovery, as distinct from the termination of the case for

discovery noncompliance, and he expressed a willingness to defer

the consideration and determination of the issue of terminating

sanctions in the interest of obtaining adequate discovery to

permit intelligent assessment of the liability aspects of the

case. Therefore, the Court has directed the continuance of the

full hearing on the motion for terminating and monetary

sanctions, and on the Defendants’ motion for modification of the

discovery orders; further, the Court has agreed to additional

time for the discovery process.

However, the Court has serious concerns with the delay

caused to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants’ failure to meet and

confer regarding ongoing discovery issues, participate in the

preparation of joint statements regarding discovery disputes, and

object responsibly to the reasonable discovery requests of

Plaintiff. The Court also is deeply concerned about the

Defendants’ repeated and apparently unjustified failure to comply

with the Court’s previous discovery orders. The Court notes that

separate and apart from failing to produce requested discovery,

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Defendants and/or their counsel have failed to comply with the

Court’s previous order of payment of $500.00 by Defendants and

Defendants’ counsel by November 2, 2007.

Therefore, the Court has determined to continue the matter

of monetary sanctions only because of the continuing willingness

of the parties and counsel to proceed in good faith to expedite

discovery and work efficiently, cooperatively, and in good faith

as officers of the Court to explore settlement and ultimate

preparation of the case for trial. 

III. Settlement Conference

On July 24, 2007, the Court vacated a settlement conference

dates after Plaintiffs’ counsel advised the Court that it would

not be productive; the parties were to contact the Court for a

new settlement conference if they felt it could be productive. A

letter to the Court from Plaintiff’s counsel dated July 13, 2007,

and filed thereafter, requested vacating the conference but

rescheduling it after defense counsel responded to Plaintiff’s

counsel’s request for new dates. There is no further entry in the

minutes concerning a settlement conference.

It presently appears that a settlement conference, set for a

time after production of documents has been completed, could be

productive.

Therefore, counsel and the parties ARE DIRECTED TO APPEAR at

a settlement conference on June 5, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. 

Counsel ARE FURTHER INFORMED that a Confidential Settlement

Conference Statement IS MANDATORY, and must be submitted to Judge

Snyder's chambers, at least five (5) court days prior to the

Settlement Conference, by e-mail to SMSOrders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Failure to so comply may result in the imposition of monetary

and/or other sanctions.

Further, counsel ARE DIRECTED to comply with all pertinent

directions concerning the settlement conference and the

settlement conference statement as set forth in the Court’s

scheduling conference order of June 12, 2007. 

IV. Vacating Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates

After a full discussion with counsel in chambers, the Court

concludes that adherence to the presently set trial date of March

24, 2008, would result in prejudice to the parties, and that

there is no realistic possibility of readiness for a pretrial

conference presently set for February 8, 2008. Because the

parties are meeting and conferring in good faith in a continuing

effort to complete discovery efficiently in light of the recent

rulings of the Court, the Court has determined that a change in

the trial and pretrial conference dates is in the interest of

justice.

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the presently set pretrial

conference date of February 8, 2008, and the presently set trial

date of March 24, 2008. The Court anticipates re-setting these

dates at the telephonic status conference of April 24, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00297-LJO -SMS Document 180 Filed 01/30/08 Page 8 of 8