Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01042/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01042-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

The Court held a status conference on October 12, 2016. In advance of the conference, the 

parties submitted a lengthy joint statement setting forth disputes over certain requests for further 

production documents. (Doc. 50) After reviewing the joint statement and considering the 

arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the bulk of the remaining requests do not address the 

limited issues raised in the pending motion for summary judgment. In particular, the Court 

disagrees that the overall conduct of the defendant related to its operations, its hiring and firing 

decisions, its decisions related to decreases in demand bear on whether the named plaintiffs were 

entitled to the protections of the WARN or Cal-WARN Acts. See, e.g., Meson v. GATX Tech. 

Servs. Corp., 507 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has not and does not here preclude 

further discovery on a class-wide basis at the appropriate time. However, the class discovery will 

proceed after the discovery related to the issues raised in the pending motion has been completed 

and the motion decided. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

STEPHEN HALE, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING 

(CALIFORNIA) Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-CV-01042 DAD JLT

ORDER AFTER FURTHER STATUS 

CONFERENCE

Case 1:15-cv-01042-DAD-JLT Document 52 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

1. The defendants SHALL produce their amended privilege log addressing any

deficiency that currently exists in that document, no later than October 14, 2016;

2. As to requests for production numbers 3 through 9, no later than October 24, 2016, the 

defendants SHALL produce any communications not previously produced, between Ensign and their 

clients at Rigs 606 and 609, (as described on page 27, lines 20-22 of the parties’ joint statement) or a

statement certifying that no further documents exist;

3. As to requests for production numbers 3 through 9, the defendants SHALL produce all

e-mails concerning Rigs 606 and 609 that were not sent to or received from personnel at Rigs 606 or 

609 (as described generally on page 28, lines 9-11 of the parties’ joint statement but expanded by the 

Court at the hearing to include hiring, firing layoff or other topics encompassed by the motion) or a 

statement certifying that no such documents exist, no later than November 11, 2016. The Court 

expects all reasonable efforts to be taken to ensure one of these actions is completed by the deadline. 

However, if one of these events has not occurred, no later than November 11, 2016, the defendants 

SHALL produce a written explanation to the plaintiffs’ counsel and filed with the Court as to what

action will occur and when it will occur. 

4. As to requests for production numbers 11 through 13, no later than October 24, 2016, 

the defendants SHALL produce the organization chart (as described on page 31 lines 25-26 of the 

parties’ joint statement) and any other documents not previously produced or a statement certifying 

that no further documents exist, that demonstrate the day-to-day control of the employees of Rigs 606 

and 609;

5. As to requests for production numbers 131through 14, no later than October 24, 2016, 

the defendants SHALL produce all documents relating to lodging and transportation expenditures for 

Rigs 606 and 609 (as described on page 33 lines 12-13 of the parties’ joint statement);

6. As to requests for production number 23, no later than October 24, 2016, the 

defendants SHALL produce all documents, which also includes any relevant company policies, 

relating to the location where the interviews occurred, where reviews of employees occurred, where 

 

1 The joint reports references two production requests numbered “13.” (Doc. 50 at 32 and 33) The Court adopts the 

same numbering here.

Case 1:15-cv-01042-DAD-JLT Document 52 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

new-hire drug testing occurred and where training occurred for employees of Rigs 606 and 609;

7. Defendants SHALL produce any policies related to practices of billing Ensign’s 

customers;

8. Counsel SHALL file a joint report no later than December 1, 2016, setting forth the 

current status of the matter and, as appropriate, a further schedule for completing this phase of 

discovery and a further briefing schedule for the pending dispositive motion;

9. The Court sets a further status conference on December 5, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel 

may appear by telephone via the CourtCall service;

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01042-DAD-JLT Document 52 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3