Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01229/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01229-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Defendant
Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc.
Defendant
Rodney D. Johnson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 1 

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

Elizabeth R. Ison (State Bar No. 138382) 

Stephen D. Geist (SBN 178839) 

THE ISON LAW GROUP 

3220 M Street 

Sacramento, California 95816 

Telephone: (916) 492-6555 

Facsimile: (916) 492-6556 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY and 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF 

SACRAMENTO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RODNEY D. JOHNSON 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, INC. and 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR OF 

SACRAMENTO, INC. and Does 1 

through 10 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

Case No. 2:05-CV-01229-WBS-KJM 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT 

DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 

 

I. Stipulation 

Subject to the approval of this Court, Defendants ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 

COMPANY and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF SACRAMENTO (hereinafter 

“Defendants” or “ENTERPRISE”), and Plaintiff RODNEY D. JOHNSON (“Plaintiff” or 

“JOHNSON”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. That the expert disclosure deadlines contained in the Court’s Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Order signed by Judge William B. Schubb on May 4, 2006, be extended by ninety 

(90) days. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s deadline to disclose experts and produce reports will be 

Case 2:05-cv-01229-WBS -KJM Document 37 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 5
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 2 

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

changed from July 28, 2006 to October 28, 2006, and Defendants’ deadline to disclose experts 

will be changed from August 11, 2006 to November 11, 2006. 

II. Brief Summary of Case 

This is a claim for employment discrimination based on race brought under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866). Plaintiff is a former 

employee of Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Sacramento where he was employed as an Area Car 

Sales Manager until he was terminated in March 2004. Plaintiff contends that during his 

employment he was denied various promotions and other benefits as a result of his race (Black, 

African American). Plaintiff further contends that he complained about the manner which he and 

other Black, African Americans employees were treated and that he was terminated as a result 

of his complaints. 

Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff was fired for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason involving 

dishonesty in a transaction with a client followed by further deception to his supervisor in an 

effort to conceal his dishonest transaction. This triggering event follows a history of disciplinary 

and performance problems that further compelled his termination. Defendant further contends 

that Plaintiff never applied for the promotions he claims to have been denied, nor did he 

complain to his superiors about racial discrimination. 

In addition to the underlying employment issues presented in this case, a second issue 

exists regarding whether or not Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company is a proper defendant in this 

case. Defendants maintain that Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, although a parent company to 

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Sacramento, is not Plaintiff’s employer and cannot be liable 

for the claims raised in this lawsuit. In contrast, Plaintiff seeks to hold the parent company liable 

Case 2:05-cv-01229-WBS -KJM Document 37 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 5
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 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

under an integrated enterprise theory. The parties anticipate discovery related to this issue is 

distinct, at least in part, to discovery on the underlying employment claims.

III. Good Cause Exists For This Stipulation 

Good cause exists for this Stipulation because the parties cannot meaningfully evaluate 

their expert needs until further discovery is completed. In addition, even if expert needs could 

be determined at this early stage of discovery, there is insufficient time for experts to review 

evidence relevant to their opinions, much of which is yet to be gathered through the discovery 

process. 

Although the parties have approximately five (5) more months to conduct discovery in 

this matter, they have only one (1) month left before the expert disclosure and reports must be 

produced. Unfortunately, discovery is still in its early stages. Both parties have served their 

initial disclosures in this case. In addition, Defendants have served written discovery on 

Plaintiff, and anticipates written responses by the end of June 2006. Plaintiff’s deposition is 

scheduled to commence on July 6, 2006. In addition, several of Defendants’ employees (many 

of whom reside outside of California) are scheduled for depositions starting on July 20 and on 

several dates thereafter. Furthermore, Defendants are attempting to serve a subpoena on a 

former employee identified by Plaintiff as having relevant information to his case. 

Despite this forward motion on discovery, the expert disclosure deadlines (July 28, 2006 

and August 11, 2006) literally fall on the heels of this early discovery. Indeed, further 

depositions and discovery are contemplated. Most notably, the parties have agreed to first focus 

primarily on the underlying employment claims in the continued hope that this discovery might 

lead to informal resolution. Accordingly, discovery relating to the parent-subsidiary relationship 

of the two defendants in this case have not yet been scheduled. In sum, given the early stage of 

Case 2:05-cv-01229-WBS -KJM Document 37 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 5
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 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

discovery, meaningful compliance with the expert disclosure deadlines is not possible. The 

parties will be prejudiced if they must meet these deadlines as they will be forced to evaluate 

their expert needs prematurely and produce expert reports that are based on a hasty review of 

incomplete evidence. 

Furthermore, the parties are not delinquent in pursuing their discovery. The parties 

attempted to mediate this matter in early April 2006, and agreed to stay discovery until after 

mediation. Indeed the parties advised the Court in their initial Joint Status Conference 

Statement of this fact and presumably the Court’s continuance of the Status Conference was 

based on that factor. Having failed to resolve the matter at mediation, the parties submitted 

their updated Joint Status Conference Statement on or around April 24, 2006. Thereafter, the 

Court issued its Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order on May 5, 2006 based on the Joint Status 

Conference Statement of the parties and without appearances requested or made by counsel. 

Written discovery was served shortly thereafter and efforts to arrange initial depositions began. 

In the end, further discovery must be completed before expert needs can be determined. 

In addition, once relevant discovery is completed, further time is needed to allow experts to 

review the evidence revealed through discovery. Good cause therefore exists for a ninety (90) 

day extension of the expert disclosure deadlines, as stipulated to by the parties. 

IT IS AGREED. 

THE ISON LAW GROUP 

Dated: June 23, 2006 By: __/ s / Elizabeth R. Ison____________ 

 Elizabeth R. Ison, Esq. 

Attorney for Defendants 

 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY 

AND ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 

COMPANY OF SACRAMENTO 

 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 

Case 2:05-cv-01229-WBS -KJM Document 37 Filed 06/26/06 Page 4 of 5
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 5 

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

Dated: June 23,2006 By: __/ s / Peter Johnson____ 

 Peter Johnson, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER 

The extensions set forth above are approved. All other dates set in the Status (Pre-Trial 

Scheduling) Order of May 5, 2005, remain as previously set. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 23, 2006. 

_____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01229-WBS -KJM Document 37 Filed 06/26/06 Page 5 of 5