Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04534/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04534-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA BRABOY,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-4534 PJH

v. ORDER RE JOINT CASE

MANAGEMENT REPORT

STAPLES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the parties’ joint case management report, wherein the parties

request a further case management conference in order to discuss the status of

outstanding discovery efforts following the June 17 discovery conference with Judge

Zimmerman, and to set a briefing schedule with respect to both the “Staples, Inc. employer”

issue, and class certification. 

Based on the parties’ case management report, as well as the parties’ prior

discovery proposals filed in compliance with the court’s previous June 14 case

management minute order, the court agrees with the parties that resolution of the

“employer” issue should occur prior to resolution of the class certification issues. The

court’s determination of the proper scope of discovery with respect to class certification –

and issues related to Staples, Inc. specifically – is dependent upon a determination as to

whether defendant Staples, Inc., was, in fact, plaintiff’s “employer.” The court accordingly

instructs the parties to submit a stipulated proposed briefing schedule, no later than July

30, 2010, in connection with a motion to resolve the “employer” issue. The stipulation shall

comply with the time limitations set forth in Civil Local Rules 7-2 and 7-3. 

The parties may engage in limited discovery related to the single ‘employer’ issue, if

Case 4:09-cv-04534-PJH Document 58 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 2
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

necessary to prepare the motion. Once the employer issue is resolved, the court will

conduct a further case management conference in order to set a briefing schedule with

respect to class certification and other related pretrial scheduling. 

 The parties’ case management report also raises a dispute over paragraph 4 of the

court’s January 14 minute order. Specifically, the parties dispute whether the undersigned

intended that all discovery matters be referred to the Magistrate Judge, or intended to

maintain exclusive authority to decide some issues related to the scope of discovery. The

court’s minute order reflects the undersigned’s intent to refer all discovery matters,

including those related to the scope of discovery, to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Thus,

all discovery issues – including scope of discovery issues once Staples’ “employer” status

is determined – shall be resolved by the assigned Magistrate Judge. As noted above,

however, to the extent the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to the scope of discovery depends

on resolution of the “employer” issue, such a ruling will depend upon the undersigned’s

resolution of the “employer” issue. 

In light of the foregoing, no further case management conference is necessary. Any

additional questions or issues may be raised by the parties at the August 4 hearing on

defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04534-PJH Document 58 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 2