Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00615/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00615-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 01CV1864 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESFAZGHI WOLDEAB, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

7-ELEVEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06-0615-JM(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION TO EXTEND CASE

MANAGEMENT DATES

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff’s Application to Extend the Case Management Dates

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The date by which each expert witness designated by a party

shall prepare a written report and provide the report to all other

parties, is extended to February 20, 2007.

The date by which any expert witness designated by a party

shall supplement any of his/her expert reports regarding evidence

intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject

matter identified in an expert report submitted by another party, is

extended to March 5, 2007.

\\

Case 3:06-cv-00615-JM-LSP Document 48 Filed 01/30/07 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 01CV1864 

Plaintiffs’ Application to Compel Further Responses to

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part.

The Court addresses each interrogatory and request for

production of documents:

Interogatory #7

Plaintiffs’ interrogatory is overly broad. Moreover, neither

Plaintiffs nor Defendant address the issue of whether or not the

conditions under which Plaintiffs took the test were sub-standard,

oppressive, or would otherwise provide a basis upon which the Court

could conclude that a comparison of other facilities in which the

test is given, in California or elsewhere, is necessary or appropriate. Only local testing conditions are relevant to Plaintiffs’

claims, absent some showing by Plaintiffs that they were subjected

to sub-standard conditions when they took the test. Plaintiffs’

Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory #7 is

DENIED.

Interrogatory #8

Plaintiffs have failed to adequately explain how Defendant’s

response to the interrogatory is “evasive” or otherwise fails to

substantiate its belief that the test is adequate. Defendant’s

response is sufficient. Plaintiff’s Application to Compel Further

Response to Interrogatory #8 is DENIED.

Interrogatory #9

Defendant’s Response to this interrogatory is adequate.

Plaintiffs’ Application to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory

#9 is DENIED.

\\ 

Case 3:06-cv-00615-JM-LSP Document 48 Filed 01/30/07 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

1 The Court notes that Defendant stated in its Opposition to

Plaintiffs’ Application that it has determined that, not including

employment discrimination cases, it has not been a Defendant in a

lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in franchising or failure to

3 01CV1864 

Interrogatory #13

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs’ Complaint (and First

Amended Complaint) at paragraph 20, indicates that “non-white

franchisees are statistically under-represented with respect to the

population of California” is correct. Plaintiff has not clearly

alleged a nation-wide pattern of discrimination. While paragraph 20

contains allegations which arguably exceed California boundaries,

Plaintiffs’ claims of alleged intentional discrimination are locally

focused. Therefore, the Court concludes that the information sought

in this interrogatory will not lead to admissible evidence with

regard to whether or not Plaintiffs in this case suffered discrimination in the application process. Plaintiffs’ Application to Compel

Further Response to Interrogatory #13 is DENIED.

Interrogatory #16

This interrogatory is overly broad. The Court cannot discern

how all lawsuits brought against Defendant in the last ten years

that allege racial discrimination, could be relevant or lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiffs are entitled

to discover all claims of non-white franchise applicants in

California who were denied a franchise during the franchise

application process for a reasonable time period. Therefore,

Defendant shall further respond to this interrogatory by identifying

the name and case number of any cases in California in which nonwhite franchise applicants in California were denied franchises

during the franchise application process from January 1, 1995 to

January 1, 2005.1 Plaintiffs’ Application to Compel Further Response

Case 3:06-cv-00615-JM-LSP Document 48 Filed 01/30/07 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

contract in the last ten years anywhere in the United States. If

Defendant has not provided a formal response to Plaintiffs in this

regard, it shall do so.

2 See footnote 1.

4 01CV1864 

to Interrogatory #16 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Request for Production of Documents #1

This Request for Production of Documents is overly broad. The

Court cannot discern how all lawsuits brought against Defendant in

the last ten years that allege racial discrimination, could be

relevant or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However,

Plaintiffs are entitled to discover all claims of non-white

franchise applicants in California who were denied a franchise

during the franchise application process for a reasonable time

period. Therefore, Defendant shall further respond to this request

for production of documents by producing all documents it has in its

possession, custody and control which identify the name and case

number of any cases in California in which non-white franchise

applicants in California were denied franchises during the franchise

application process from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 2005.2

Plaintiffs’ Application to Compel Further Response to Request for

Production of Documents #1 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Request for Production of Documents #8

This Request for Production of Documents is overly broad. The

Court cannot discern how all documents that track the racial, ethnic

or national origin of all Defendant’s franchisees could be relevant

or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, Plaintiffs

are entitled to discover the race, national origin or ethnicity of

Defendant’s franchisees in California. To this end, Defendant has

informed the Court that it has no documents that are responsive to

Case 3:06-cv-00615-JM-LSP Document 48 Filed 01/30/07 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

3 Plaintiff’s Application notes that on November 22, 2006, Defendant

responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests that are discussed in

this Order. On January 3, 2007, the parties agreed to extend the

date for seeking an order compelling responses to the discovery

requests to January 5, 2007. On January 5, 2007, the parties agreed

to extend the date for seeking an order compelling responses to the

discovery requests to January 9, 2007. While counsel are required

to meet and confer regarding their discovery disputes before

bringing them to the court’s attention, the Court is concerned that

Plaintiffs did not bring to the Court’s attention the current

discovery dispute until January 9, 2007. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

allowing this discovery dispute to drag on from November 22, 2006 to

January 9, 2007 indicates to the Court that Plaintiffs’ counsel has

been dilatory in his discovery obligations in this case.

5 01CV1864 

this Request, but can produce a report showing the races of all

franchisees in California as of October 31, 2006, the date of the

discontinuation of Plaintiffs’ franchise application. Therefore,

Defendant shall provide a formal response to this Request stating

that it has no documents responsive to the request and produce a

report from data it possesses that shows the races of all franchisees in California as of October 31, 2006. Plaintiffs’ Application

to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents #8

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The date by which all discovery in this case shall be

completed is extended to March 23, 2007.3 The date by which all

discovery shall be completed is extended solely for the purpose of

compliance with this Order. No further extensions of Case Management dates will be granted, except upon a showing of good cause.

“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be initiated a sufficient

period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be

completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for

services, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

 The date and time of the Settlement Conference on February 12,

Case 3:06-cv-00615-JM-LSP Document 48 Filed 01/30/07 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 01CV1864 

2007 at 9:00 AM is vacated and reset for April 11, 2007 at 9:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00615-JM-LSP Document 48 Filed 01/30/07 Page 6 of 6