Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00505-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY COSBY,

NO. CIV. S-08-505 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

AUTOZONE, INC., JIM KULBACKI

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

On November 12, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the

tentative pretrial order issued by the court on October 29, 2009.

Plaintiff requested that the court add three disputed factual

issues, one point of law, and numerous discovery documents.

Plaintiff also requests that the court replace the exhibit list

filed in the tentative order.

Defendants oppose the addition of two of the three disputed

factual issues (Nos. 55 and 56) and the point of law. They argue

that plaintiff seeks to add new claims to his case. Defendants

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 30 Filed 11/24/09 Page 1 of 4
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

2

contest the following additions to the pretrial order:

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES . . . 

55. Whether or not AutoZone engaged in a pattern of

retaliation against employees who engaged in

protected activities? . . . 

56. Whether or not Randy Cosby’s termination was part

of an annual scheme to terminate all employees

engaged in protected activities within the 

Sacramento Region? . . . 

POINTS OF LAW . . . 

(e) The elements, standards, and burdens of proof of a

claim for failure to prevent discrimination and

retaliation under the FEHA under the facts and

circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff’s Objections to Tentative Pretrial Conference Order at

1-2. Defendants argue that plaintiff is “attempting to add a

‘pattern-or-practice’ retaliation claim.” Defendant’s Response to

Plaintiff’s Objections to Tentative Pretrial Conference Order at

1. With respect to the factual disputes plaintiff seeks to add,

defendants state that (1) plaintiff did not allege a pattern or

practice in his complaint, (2) no discovery was conducted

concerning the factual disputes, and (3) plaintiff did not mention

a patter or practice in his pretrial statement. Id. at 2.

Similarly, with respect to the point of law, defendants state that

plaintiff did not allege a failure to prevent retaliation in his

complaint or in his pretrial conference statement. Id. Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 30 Filed 11/24/09 Page 2 of 4
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

3

has not had an opportunity to respond to defendants’ arguments. For

this reason, the court orders that plaintiff shall file within ten

days of this order a response to defendant’s arguments.

Defendant also argues that this court should not allow

plaintiff to amend his exhibit list. However, the court explicitly

instructed plaintiff at the pretrial conference to file any

amendments to his exhibit list in his objections to the tentative

pretrial order. For this reason, the court will replace the exhibit

list in the pretrial order as requested.

Finally, plaintiff seeks to include discovery documents in the

pretrial order. However, at the pretrial conference, plaintiff’s

counsel indicated that he only sought to enter discovery documents

for the purpose of cross-examination. For this reason, the court

did not include the list of discovery documents included in

plaintiff’s pretrial statement, and rather stated, “Neither party

presently intends to tender [any discovery document] in evidence

except upon cross-examination.” Therefore, the court orders

plaintiff to clarify whether he intends to tender discovery

documents for any other purpose within ten (10) days of this order.

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS that plaintiff

must file a response to defendants’ arguments concerning proposed

Disputed Factual Issues Nos. 55 and 56 and proposed Point of Law

(e) within ten (10) days of this order.

The court further ORDERS plaintiff to clarify within ten (10)

days whether he intends to tender discovery documents for any other

////

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 30 Filed 11/24/09 Page 3 of 4
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

4

purpose than cross-examination within ten (10) days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 23, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 30 Filed 11/24/09 Page 4 of 4