Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03215/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03215-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

Ira Spiro, SBN 

Gretrorv N. sp& MOSS ~amess LLP 

11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor 

Los Aneeles. CA 90064-1683 

~elephke ' 3 10-235-2468 

Fax: 3 10-235-2456 

Bobbv Debes. admitted vro hac vice 

Debes Law F~I 

3Dllnternational Tower, 1900 W. Loop South, Suite 1910 

Houston. TX 77027 

bdebes~debesl;iw.corn 

Telephone (71 3) 623-0900 

Fax (713) 623-0951 

Martin A. I 

Shellist L; 3/D Inter] 

jhellist, ro hac vice application to be submitted 

azarz. ~LP 

fi@/on~~~iding,1900 west LOOD south, suite 1910 

Houston, Texas 77027 

mshellist@eeoc.net 

Telephone (713) 621-2277 

Fax: (71 3) 621 -0993 

Attot-nevs for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROYA KOlKE and ADAM ODNERT, on 9 Case No. C 86 CW 3215 WRW 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly 1 

situated, and on behalf of the general public, ) STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE Of 

) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETING 

) CERTIFICATION RELATED DISCOVERY 

Plaintiffs, AND WEARING ON MOTION FOR CLASS 

1 CERTIFICATION 

) 

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, and DOES) ? through 20, 1 

1 

1 

Defendants. ) 

) 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. C 06 CV 3215 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 1 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 7
Plaintiffs Roya Koike and Adam Odnert ("Plaintiffs"), and defendant Starbucks 

Corporation ("Starbucks"), hereby enter into the following Stipulation and request the Court to 

approve said stipulation and enter an order in accordance therewith. 

STIPULATION 

Background 

1. This case involves claims that Starbucks, as a matter of policy andlor practice, 

fails to pay Assistant Managers for all time worked in violation of California law. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs contend that Assistant Managers are regularly required to work "off the clock" without 

compensation for that work. Starbucks denies Plaintiffs' allegations, and disputes that this case 

can be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2. Starbucks operates more than 1,500 retail stores in California and the putative 

class consists of more than 4,500 current and former Assistant Managers. 

3. By order dated January 19,2007, this Court scheduled Plaintiffs' motion for class 

certification to be heard and a further case management conference to be held on August 2, 2007. 

Although the Court did not set a specific deadline for completing certification related diswvery, 

the Court's order effectively requires Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification, and thus 

complete certification related discovery beforehand, by June 28,2007. 

4. Despite diligent efforts by all parties, the nature of this case and various discovery 

disputes prevent completion of certification related discovery in sufficient time for Plaintiffs to 

prepare adequately a motion for class certification by June 28,2007. 

History of Discovery Disputes 

5. The parties did not commence diswvery until August 2006 following the meeting 

of counsel under Rule 26(d). Since the inception of discovery, various disputes arose that have 

delayed the discovery process, including the following: 

a. Communications With P-a1 Class Members 

In August 2006, Plaintiff propounded interrogatories requesting Starbucks to provide the 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

case NO. c 06 cv 3215 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 2 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 7
name and address of putative class members. Starbucks objected. Ultimately, in January 2007, 

the parties reached an agreement whereby Plaintiffs would receive the names of up to 750 

putative class members who did not object to disclosure of their names and addresses. Plaintiffs 

received this information in March 2007 in accordance with the parties' January 19,2007 

stipulation and order. 

b. Complaint Related Documents 

In August 2006, Plaintiffs requested various documents, including documents relating to 

wage related complaints. Starbucks initially objected on the grounds of relevance and undue 

burden. A& a telephonic conference with the court in December 2006, the parties anticipated 

scheduling depositions to address Starbucks' undue burden objections. Subsequcntly, after meet 

and confer efforts, the parties took those depositions off calendar and arrived at an agreanent on 

March 23,2007 with respect to the scope of complaint related documents Starbucks would 

produce. Starbucks recently produced those documents on May 24,2007. 

c. Pawoll Records 

In August 2006, Plaintiffs requested various records, including payroll records for 

putativc class members. Starbucks objected on the grounds ofundue hurden. IJltimately, the 

parties reached an agreement on a sampling of records to be produced. Starbucks commenced 

production of the sampling of payroll records on February 23,2007 and concluded the production 

on April 16,2007. 

d. Dmosition Scheduling 

Two factors have compliplicated deposition scheduling in this matter. First, Starbucks' 

corporate headquarters is located in Seattle. Second, a nationwide lawsuit has been brought 

against Starbucks alleging failure to pay Assistant Managers in violation of the FLSA. That 

lawsuit, known as the Falcon lawsuit, is presently pending in federal court in Texas. The cases 

have not been deemed related because Plaintiffs have excluded from the class definition in this 

case all current or former Assistant Managers from California who agreed to pursue their claims 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

case NO. c 06 cv 3215 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 3 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 7
against Starbucks under the FLSA in the Falcon case. Counsel for plaintiffs in the Falcon case 

are co-counsel in this case. 

In December 2006 and February 2007 (afier review of several thousands of documents 

produced by Starbucks between November 2006 and January 2007) Plaintiffs noticed 30(b)(6) 

depositions on the following topics: 

1) Starbucks organizational structure; 

2) Starbucks operationnl structure; 

3) Starbucks managerial structure; 

4) Starbucks communications systems; 

5) Starbucks systems for recording communications; 

6) Starbucks systems for storing records of communications; 

7) Starbucks syst~ms for making time records; 

8) Stirbucks systems for storing time records; 

9) Starbucks policiesiprocedures regarding complaints about unpaid wages; 

10) Starbucks policiesiprocedures regarding investigations of complaints about 

unpaid wages; 

1 1) Starbucks policiedprocedu~es regarding records of investigations of 

complaints about unpaid wages; 

13) Starbucks policies/procedures regarding the recording of hours worked; 

14) Starbucks policies/procedures regarding the reporting of hours worked; 

15) Starbucks policies/procedures regarding the changing of entries in records 

of time worked; 

16) Starbucks policies/procedures regarding the auditing of time records; 

17) Starbucks policies/procedures regarding the scheduling or allowing of 

overthe; 

18) Starbucks reclassification of Assistant Managers in California from 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. C 06 CV 3215 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 4 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 7
exempt to non-exempt in September 2002 and 

19) The job duties of Assistant Managers. 

As a result of the parties agreements with respect to document production issues, and the 

fact that counsel in the Falcon case took the depositions of Starbucks personnel on some of these 

issues in the Falcon case (that Starbucks agrccd could be used in this case), Plaintiffs eventually 

took the deposition of a Starbucks representative, on April 17 and 18,2007, with respect to 

topics 1, 2,3, 17, 18 and 19, and agreed to defer depositions on the other topics. 

Following this deposition, Pl~intiffs noticed 30@)(6) depositions on thc following topics: 

20) Starbucks Automated Labor Scheduling (ALS) System; 

21) Incentive compensation for mmagers; 

22) Complaints regarding unpaid wages; 

23) Materials relating to implementation of new job descriptions for Assistant 

Managers in September 2002; 

24) A particularjob description document (Exhibit 11) the deponent on April 

17 and 18 did not have sufficient knowledge to testify about; 

25) Daily store operations; 

26) Training of Assistant Managers; 

27) Labor Budgets; 

28) Job descriptions of Store Managers; 

29) Performance evaluations for Assistant Managers 

Of these topics, depositions to date have been scheduled on topics 21 (for June 14 in 

Seattle); 20 and 27 (for June 15 in Seattle); 26 (for June 18 in 1,os Angeles); and 25 and 29 (for 

June 26in Los Angeles). Plaintiffs have agreed to defer the remaining topics in part because of 

the supplemental production of documents by Starbucks in May 2007 and also pending review of 

deposition testimony elicited in the Falcon case. 

6. Other Pending Discovery 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Case No. C 06 CV 321 5 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 5 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 5 of 7
a. Plaintiffs' Dwositions 

The parties are in the process of scheduling the noticed depositions of the individual 

Plaintiffs. Starbucks initially noticed Plaintiffs' depositions for December 2006 but took them 

off calendar due to the unavailability of its counsel. In the past several weeks, Starbucks has 

endeavored to put thc depositions back on calendar, but has experienced difficulty given the 

Plaintiffs' schedules, the coordination of other depositions, and the locations of Plaintiffs and 

counsel (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles). The parties expect to complete Plaintiffs' 

depositions in July 2007. 

b. Potential Disputes 

The parties continue to meet and confer and hope to resolve various discoveiy issues 

regarding further 30@)(6) depositions and Plaintiffs' request for production of certain email. 

Pro~osed Modification of Litigation Sched* 

7. The parties agree that, despite their reasonable efforts, in light of the nature and 

history of this case, discovery relating to class issues cannot be completed before the June 28, 

2007 deadline effectively established by the court's January 19 order. The parties therefore agree 

that the deadline for completion of discovery related to class issues be extended at least 45 days, 

to a date no sooner than August 14, 2007, and request that the class certification hearing and 

further case management conference presently scheduled for August 2 be continued for at least 

forty five days to a date convenient for the court no earlier than September 17,2007. 

General Understandings 

8. Starbucks does not admit or concede that plaintiffs can establish any of the 

requirements for maintaining a class action. This stipulation shall be without prejudice to any 

arguments or contentions Starbucks may wish to raise in opposition to certification of this case as 

a class action. 

9. This stipulation shall be without prejudice to any other discovery that may be 

sought by either party, or any objections in response thereto. Each party also reserves the right to 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

case NO. c 06 cv 321 5 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 6 of 7 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 6 of 7
seek modification or limitation of this stipulation upon a showing of good cause. 

DATED: June 8, 2007 SPlRO MOSS BARNESS LLP 

BY: 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: ~LInek 2007 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HALIER & FELD LLP 

B 

BY: 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ORDER 

The foregoing stipulation is hereby approved and the parties are ordered to comply with 

this order. In addition, the Court orders that the class certification hearing and further case 

management conference previously scheduled for August 2,2007 shall be continued to 

,2007. 

Dated: - 

-States District Judge 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

case NO. c 06 cv 3215 VRW 

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 60 Filed 06/08/2007 Page 7 of 7

October 11 6/19/2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/19/07 Page 7 of 7