Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01063/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01063-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JIMMY GREER, individually, and on 

behalf of others similarly situated,, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD 

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

ORDER 

 An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on September 17, 2015. 

Bevin Allen appeared for the plaintiff; Paul Cowie appeared for the defendant. 

 Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on September 10, 2015, and 

discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court will set schedule for class 

certification first. The court makes the following orders: 

I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 

 All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted without 

leave of court, good cause having been shown. 

Case 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 6
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

II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS 

 No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without 

leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 The parties have met and conferred regarding the plaintiff’s fourth claim for 

violation of Labor Code Section 204. Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the allegation. The court 

approves the parties’ proposal that the deadline for pleadings amendments, including the 

plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint to dismiss the fourth claim, be October 1, 2015. 

 The parties agree that defendant’s answer can stand as the answer to the amended 

complaint. The court orders the parties to file a stipulation confirming their agreement regarding 

defendant’s answer by October 14, 2015. 

III. JURISDICTION/VENUE 

 Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, 1453 and 1446, 

because minimal diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Venue lies 

in the Eastern District of California based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446(a), and 84(b). Jurisdiction 

and venue are not disputed. 

IV. DISCOVERY 

 The court approves the parties’ agreement to allow up to 35 interrogatories and 15 

depositions. 

 The court declines to strictly bifurcate class certification discovery from merits 

discovery, while approving prioritizing discovery so that class certification matters are explored 

first. Recognizing that there is likely to be some overlap of class certification and merits 

discovery, the parties should meet and confer on the scope of the first stage of discovery 

scheduled here. Any dispute that arises between the parties with respect to the scope will be 

decided by the assigned magistrate judge. 

Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be 

completed by October 8, 2015. All class certification discovery shall be completed by March 

29, 2016. In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that 

Case 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 6
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

all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by 

appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. 

All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in 

accordance with the local rules of this court. While the assigned magistrate judge reviews 

proposed discovery phase protective orders, requests to seal or redact are decided by Judge 

Mueller as discussed in more detail below. In addition, while the assigned magistrate judge 

handles discovery motions, the magistrate judge cannot change the schedule set in this order, 

even in connection with a discovery matter. 

The parties shall file a joint proposed discovery protective order with the court by 

October 19, 2015. 

V. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 

 All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the court, and serve upon all other 

parties the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender with 

respect to class certification not later than May 10, 2016. The designation shall be accompanied 

by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(2)(B). By May 31, 2016, any party who previously disclosed expert witnesses may 

submit a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will express an opinion on a subject covered 

by an expert designated by an adverse party, if the party supplementing an expert witness 

designation has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject. The supplemental 

designation shall be accompanied by a written report, which shall also comply with the conditions 

stated above. 

 Failure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all 

likelihood will preclude that party from relying on the expert witness on motions addressing class 

certification. An expert witness not appearing on the designation will not be permitted to testify 

unless the party offering the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity for the witness could not 

have been reasonably anticipated at the time the list was proffered; (b) that the court and opposing 

counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness; and (c) that the witness was 

promptly made available for deposition. 

Case 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 6
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

 For purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is any person who may be used 

at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703 and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which 

include both “percipient experts” (persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered expert 

opinions in the normal course of their work duties or observations pertinent to the issues in the 

case) and “retained experts” (persons specifically designated by a party to be a testifying expert 

for the purposes of litigation). A party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, 

retained, or both. It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has acquired the 

express permission of the witness to be so listed. Parties designating percipient experts must state 

in the designation who is responsible for arranging the deposition of such persons. 

 All experts designated are to be fully prepared at the time of designation to render 

an informed opinion, and give the bases for their opinion, so that they will be able to give full and 

complete testimony at any deposition taken by the opposing party. Experts will not be permitted 

to testify as to any information gathered or evaluated, or opinion formed, after deposition taken 

subsequent to designation. All expert discovery shall be completed by June 30, 2016. 

VI. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE 

 Hearing on any motion for class certification will be set on December 8, 2016. 

Local Rule 230 governs the calendaring and procedures of civil motions; the 

following provisions also apply: 

 (a) The opposition and reply must be filed by 4:00 p.m. on the day due; and 

 (b) When the last day for filing an opposition brief falls on a legal holiday, the 

opposition brief shall be filed on the last court day immediately preceding the legal holiday. 

Failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c), as modified by this order, may be deemed consent to 

the motion and the court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 

652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 The court places a page limit of twenty (20) pages on all moving papers, twenty 

(20) pages on oppositions, and ten (10) pages for replies. All requests for page limit increases 

must be made in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the filing of the motion. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 6
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

 Prior to filing a motion in a case in which the parties are represented by counsel, 

counsel shall engage in a pre-filing meet and confer to discuss thoroughly the substance of the 

contemplated motion and any potential resolution. Plaintiff’s counsel should carefully evaluate 

the defendant’s contentions as to deficiencies in the complaint and in many instances the party 

considering a motion should agree to any amendment that would cure a curable defect. Counsel 

should discuss the issues sufficiently so that if a motion of any kind is filed, including for 

summary judgment, the briefing is directed only to those substantive issues requiring resolution 

by the court. Counsel should resolve minor procedural or other non-substantive matters during 

the meet and confer. A notice of motion shall contain a certification by counsel filing the 

motion that meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, with a brief summary of meet and 

confer efforts.

VII. SEALING 

 No document will be sealed, nor shall a redacted document be filed, without the 

prior approval of the court. If a document for which sealing or redaction is sought relates to the 

record on a motion to be decided by Judge Mueller, the request to seal or redact should be 

directed to her and not the assigned Magistrate Judge. All requests to seal or redact shall be 

governed by Local Rules 141 (sealing) and 140 (redaction); protective orders covering the 

discovery phase of litigation shall not govern the filing of sealed or redacted documents on the 

public docket. The court will only consider requests to seal or redact filed by the proponent of 

sealing or redaction. If a party plans to make a filing that includes material an opposing party has 

identified as confidential and potentially subject to sealing, the filing party shall provide the 

opposing party with sufficient notice in advance of filing to allow for the seeking of an order of 

sealing or redaction from the court. 

VIII. SCHEDULE CONFERENCE 

 Once the motion for class certification has been resolved, the court will set the 

schedule conference for the balance of the case. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 09/28/15 Page 5 of 6
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

IX. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

 No settlement conference is currently scheduled. A settlement conference may be 

set at the time of the next scheduling conference or at an earlier time at the parties’ request. In the 

event that an earlier court settlement conference date or referral to the Voluntary Dispute 

Resolution Program (VDRP) is requested, the parties shall file said request jointly, in writing. All 

parties should be prepared to advise the court whether they will stipulate to the trial judge acting 

as settlement judge and waive disqualification by virtue thereof. 

 Counsel are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at 

any Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. Each judge 

has different requirements for the submission of settlement conference statements; the appropriate 

instructions will be sent to you after the settlement judge is assigned. 

X. MODIFICATION OF STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of court 

upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone does not 

constitute good cause. Except in extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or 

counsel does not constitute good cause. 

XI. OBJECTIONS TO STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

 This Status Order will become final without further order of the court unless 

objections are filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of service of this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 28, 2015. 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD Document 13 Filed 09/28/15 Page 6 of 6