Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00430-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

FRESNO DIVISION

GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL 

ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE, 

individually and on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA 

DAIRIES, INC.

Defendants

Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PROPOSED 

ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY 

ISSUES

(Doc. 368)

On November 14, 2016, the parties submitted a “Stipulation Governing Discovery Issues 

and [Proposed] Order,” (ECF No. 368) purporting to stipulate to a stay of discovery and 

modification of the Fifth Scheduling Order (ECF No. 348). The parties explained that Plaintiffs 

have disclosed to Defendants their intent to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint to 

account for newly discovered evidence. Additionally, the parties have agreed to engage in good 

faith settlement negotiations. Accordingly, the parties proposed that all deposition discovery be 

stayed until an answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint or order denying leave to file a Fourth 

Amended Complaint, with limited exceptions of five individuals. The parties disagree regarding

the scope of written discovery during the proposed stay. 

During a hearing on November 18, 2016, the parties further clarified that they have a 

private mediation set for December 20, 2016.

Case 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG Document 371 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 3
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

The Court declines to adopt the terms of the stay to the full extent proposed by the 

parties. This case is more than seven years old. There is no trial date set. The class has not yet 

gone through a certification hearing. Suffice to say at this point, this case needs to proceed 

efficiently and further delays must be supported by good cause.

The Court agrees to a limited stay to facilitate settlement. Accordingly, the Court 

imposes a full stay of discovery until after the December 20, 2016 conference with one 

exception. All parties shall provide documents and information regarding the scope and amount 

of insurance coverage, to the extent not already disclosed, prior to December 20, 2016 in order to 

facilitate settlement. The parties may also exchange any discovery on a voluntary basis.

Following December 20, 2016, to the extent the case does not settle, written and 

document discovery should proceed in earnest notwithstanding filing of an amended complaint 

and briefing regarding that amended complaint. Although the scope of discovery may require 

expansion in light additional claims or parties in that complaint, the complaint has now gone 

through several iterations and significant claims have now been upheld by the Court, including 

with direction from the Ninth Circuit. Document and written discovery regarding claims and 

parties already upheld by the Court should proceed on those claims and parties, without 

limitation as to class or merits discovery. To the extent that a party challenges discovery as 

being unduly burdensome or not relevant due to significant expected challenges to the scope of 

class discovery, this Court will hear any such objections on a case by case basis, consistent with 

its standard discovery procedures. 

The Court also does not agree to an open period for such discovery without any time 

restrictions. The Court fears that discovery will not proceed expeditiously without a deadline. 

Accordingly, the Court will set a deadline of June 30, 2017 to complete production of all 

documents and respond to all written discovery regarding claims and parties upheld in the 

Third Amended Complaint. The parties are directed to bring to the Court’s attention any 

disputes regarding discovery in order to obtain any necessary orders on motions to compel prior 

to this deadline. 

Case 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG Document 371 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 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

The Court agrees to hold deposition discovery in abeyance until the amended complaint 

is resolved, with the exception of Lani Ellingsworth, Candice Bimemiller, and three depositions 

of current or former California Dairy employees, per agreement among the parties. The parties 

should expect to move forward expeditiously after such time.

Accordingly, the Fifth Scheduling Order, ECF no. 348, is modified as follows:

All discovery is stayed until December 20, 2016, except regarding insurance coverage as 

described in this order, or as voluntarily exchanged among the parties.

All document and written discovery regarding all claims and parties upheld in the Third 

Amended Complaint, without limitation, shall proceed following December 20, 2016 to be 

completed by June 30, 2017.

The depositions of Lani Ellingsworth, Candice Bimemiller, and three depositions of 

current or former California Dairies employees shall proceed per agreement by the parties, but 

no later than June 30, 2017.

Within fourteen days of either an answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint or an order 

denying leave to file a Fourth Amended complaint, the parties shall submit to the Court a status 

report and proposed amended scheduling order for additional dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG Document 371 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 3