Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX EXPRESS,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-2659 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF

SCOPE OF CERTIFIED PROMOTION

CLAIMS

Defendant has filed a motion for clarification of the scope of the certified promotion claims,

which is currently scheduled for a hearing on November 17, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

the Court determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the

hearing. 

Defendant seeks clarification of the scope of the promotion claims certified in this case.

Defendant asserts that neither the Court’s class certification order nor Dr. Drogin’s report provides

FedEx’s statistical expert with guidance regarding her development of data to rebut plaintiffs’ promotion

claims. Defendant states that the promotion requirements differ depending on the position sought, and

that clarification is necessary in order to fairly prepare for trial. Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s motion,

contending that “all” promotion claims have been certified and that defendant is not prejudiced because

it has access to all the relevant data and can perform whatever statistical analyses it wishes.

The Court concludes that defendant is entitled to clarification regarding which promotion claims

plaintiffs intend to litigate at trial. This case involves complex and wide-ranging claims, and the Court

finds it reasonable to require plaintiffs to define the specific promotion claims they intend to litigate at

trial, as well as the sections of Dr. Drogin’s report upon which they will rely to support those claims.

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 522 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiffs shall file such a statement no later than November 28, 2006. The parties are encouraged to

meet and confer regarding a stipulation to extend the expert discovery cut-off. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good causeshown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion

for clarification. (Docket No. 492). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 522 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2