Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02299/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02299-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pamela Lynn Rux
Plaintiff
Starbucks Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA LYNN RUX,

2:05-CV-02299-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a

Washington Corporation,

Defendant.

Through the present action, Plaintiff Pamela Lynn Rux

alleges Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”)

discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation in

violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

(“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq.; retaliated against her

in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940; wrongfully terminated

her in violation of public policy; engaged in negligent hiring,

supervision, training and retention; committed negligence; and

engaged in negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

1

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 05/18/07 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

27

28

(...continued) 1

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Through this Motion, Plaintiff has moved the Court to strike

Defendant’s reply as untimely. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

The Court has already set forth a detailed factual

background for this action in its Summary Judgment Order docketed

herewith, which is incorporated by reference. Mem. & Order 2-4.

STANDARD

“A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without

peril.’ [citation omitted] ... Disregard of the order would

undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the

agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and

the cavalier.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). If a party fails to obey a pretrial

scheduling order, the Court may properly strike a party’s

pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37(b)(2)(C).

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 05/18/07 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

27

28

3

Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) empowers

the Court to sanction violations of a scheduling order. 

Specifically, the Rule provides that “[i]f a party or party’s

attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order ... the

judge, upon motion or the judge’s own initiative, may make such

orders with regard thereto as are just. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f);

see also Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that the appropriate sanction for

Defendant failing to timely file its Reply is to exclude

Defendant’s Reply and all supporting documents. Defendant

concedes that a clerical error resulted in its Reply being

untimely filed. Defendant further contends that the sanction of

exclusion would be a harsh remedy given that Plaintiff has

suffered no prejudice as a result of the foregoing error and

public policy would dictate that Defendant be permitted to reply

to Plaintiff’s Opposition in this matter. The Court agrees.

As Rule 16 clarifies, the Court may impose such orders as

are just to remedy violations of its’ Pretrial Scheduling Order. 

As a means of assessing the appropriate sanction, the Court may

consider the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking

sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.”

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 05/18/07 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

27

28

The Rio case addressed the suitability of dismissal as a 2

sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders. While not

expressly on point, the Court finds the central issues raised in

both instances analogous. Therefore, the Court shall consider

the factors set forth in Rio to assess the suitability of

exclusion of Plaintiff’s experts here. 

4

Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2002).2

In the present action, the Court finds the foregoing factors

weigh in favor of considering Defendant’s Reply and the

supporting documents submitted therewith. Specifically, there is

no risk of prejudice to Plaintiff given that the delay does not

affect her. Similarly, the Court finds that permitting the

disposition of this matter on the merits with all relevant

evidence will be better served by considering Defendant’s Reply

and supporting documents, albeit untimely.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds it appropriate to consider Defendant’s Reply

given the lack of prejudice that would result as well as the

great preference of courts to dispose of issues on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 17, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02299-MCE -EFB Document 68 Filed 05/18/07 Page 4 of 4