Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02278/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02278-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Baltazar Eduardo Barrera,

Plaintiff,

vs.

US Airways Group Incorporated et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-2278-PHX-BSB

SCHEDULING ORDER

On June 17, 2013, the Court held a Scheduling Conference pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties met before the conference in accordance with

Rule 26(f) and prepared a Joint Case Management Report. Plaintiff asserts claims related to

overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (FLSA), and

seeks certification as a collective action under § 216(b) of that Act. Defendant asserts that

Plaintiff is subject to the carrier by air exemption under § 213(b)(3) to the FLSA overtime

requirements. 

The parties proposed phased scheduling orders. Plaintiff proposed that the parties

immediately brief the issue of conditional class certification, followed by discovery limited to

final certification issues, and briefing on final certification. Defendant proposed expedited

discovery limited to Plaintiff’s job duties to be followed by briefing on a summary judgment

motion on the carrier by air exemption. Because of statute of limitations concerns for potential

plaintiffs, the Court orders that the parties first brief the issue of preliminary or conditional class

certification. The parties may commence discovery while they are briefing the issue of

Case 2:12-cv-02278-BSB Document 40 Filed 06/17/13 Page 1 of 3
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 -

conditional certification and discovery is not limited to class certification issues. After ruling

on conditional certification, the Court will set a second scheduling conference to determine the

deadlines for the remainder of the case. Therefore, on the basis of the Scheduling Conference

and the Joint Case Management Report, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Briefing on Conditional Class Certification. Plaintiff shall file a motion for

preliminary or conditional class certification of this matter as a collective action by June 21,

2013. Defendant shall file its response in opposition to that motion by July 12, 2013. Plaintiff

shall file any reply by July 26, 2013. 

a. The parties’ briefing must comply in all respects with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, including LRCiv 7.1 and LRCiv 7.2.

b. The parties shall not notice oral argument on any motion. Instead, a party

desiring oral argument shall place the words “Oral Argument Requested” immediately below

the title of the motion pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(f). The Court will issue an order scheduling oral

argument as it deems appropriate.

2. Deadline for Initial Disclosures. As agreed by the parties in the Joint Case

Management Report, initial disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), if not

already exchanged, shall be exchanged no later than July 1, 2013. The parties must file with the

Clerk of Court a Notice of Initial Disclosure, rather than copies of the actual disclosures.

3. Discovery Limitations. Depositions in this case are limited to seven hours each

as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1). The number of depositions and

interrogatories are governed by the limits in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 33.

Therefore, each party is limited to 10 depositions and 25 interrogatories, including subparts. 

The procedures for requests for admissions and requests for production in Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 34 and 36 are modified to limit each party to 40 requests for production of

documents, including subparts, and 40 requests for admissions, including subparts. The

limitations in this paragraph may be increased by mutual agreement of the parties.

Case 2:12-cv-02278-BSB Document 40 Filed 06/17/13 Page 2 of 3
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

1The prohibition on “written discovery motions” includes any written materials delivered

or faxed to the Court, including hand-delivered “correspondence” with attachments.

- 3 -

4. Discovery Disputes.

a. The parties may not file written discovery motions without leave of Court.1

If a discovery dispute arises, the parties must promptly contact the Court to request a telephonic

conference concerning the dispute. The Court will seek to resolve the dispute during the

telephonic conference, and may enter appropriate orders on the basis of the telephone

conference. The Court may order written briefing if necessary.

b. Parties shall not contact the Court concerning a discovery dispute without

first seeking to resolve the matter through personal consultation and sincere effort as required

by LRCiv 7.2(j). Any briefing ordered by the Court must also comply with LRCiv 7.2(j).

5. The Deadlines Are Firm. The parties are advised that the Court intends to enforce

the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should plan their litigation activities accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02278-BSB Document 40 Filed 06/17/13 Page 3 of 3