Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00962/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00962-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff
First America Automotive
Defendant
Lexus of Serramonte
Defendant
Sonic Automotive, Inc.
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 

 

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, SBN 084965 

DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN, SBN 063321 

ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES, SBN 205412 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

San Francisco District Office 

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 

Telephone No. (415) 625-5658 

Fax No. (415) 625-5657 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC 

AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AND FIRST 

AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE, 

 Defendants.

Case No. C-05-0962 SBA (JL) 

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

DISCOVERY CUT OFF 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), Plaintiff EEOC and Defendants Lexus of 

Serramonte, Sonic Automotive, Inc. and First America Automotive (hereafter “Defendants”) 

stipulate and request an order continuing the discovery cut off from June 30, 2006 to July 31, 2006. 

This stipulation is supported by the Points and Authorities below. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Introduction 

This is a class action sex harassment litigation brought by the EEOC against Lexus of 

Serramonte on behalf of Annie Wei and other similarly-situated women. 

There has been no extension of the scheduling conference order so far in this case. 

B. Argument 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b) provides for modification of a scheduling order through a showing of 

good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Defendant and the EEOC stipulate, based on the circumstances described below, to extend the 

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 31 Filed 04/24/06 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.

current scheduling order. 

Initial written discovery makes the parties believe that with six depositions the parties might 

be able to resolve this matter through mediation.1 This includes the deposition of claimants Annie 

Wei and Salma Rashid and four of Defendants’ witnesses. In that vein, the EEOC noticed 

depositions for March and April 2006, and the parties scheduled a mediation session with retired 

United States Magistrate Judge Edward Infante for April 19, 2006. 

Following this, EEOC Trial Attorney Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes experienced a death in the 

family and had to unexpectedly leave town for a couple of weeks. Ms. Esparza-Cervantes’ 

unavailability necessitated canceling all scheduled depositions and the planned mediation. 

The parties have since scheduled a mediation date of May 23, 2006, within Judge Infante’s 

tight mediation schedule, and scheduled six depositions to occur between late April and mid-May 

2006. Should the parties, however, not settle at the May 23, 2006 mediation session, both parties 

need additional time to conduct discovery and adequately prepare this case for trial. 

At this point, after the May 23, 2006 mediation, there will only be one month left for the 

close of discovery. That will require the parties to schedule at least ten (10) depositions and 

propound discovery that the parties have tried to avoid propounding in the interest of saving 

resources with the potential of settlement. It has been difficult to schedule depositions given 

counsels’ workload, including defense counsel being unavailable for at least one week to work on a 

trial in a separate matter. It would be impossible for counsel to complete the necessary discovery by 

June 30, 2006. 

Neither the EEOC nor Defendants have sought to delay this case. Quite the contrary: 

Counsel for both parties have made every effort to get depositions calendared; have exchanged 

initial disclosures, and have propounded discovery. However, issues have arisen that make a longer 

discovery period necessary for this case. 

// 

// 

 

1

 If the parties do not settle this matter, Plaintiff will have to take at least six more depositions and Defendants will need 

additional discovery, as well. Plaintiff further expects to propound further written discovery. 

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 31 Filed 04/24/06 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 

3.

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the discovery cut off in this 

matter be extended by one month: the cut off would then be July 31, 2006. 

April 19 , 2006 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

 

 

BY: ________/s/____________________

 Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 

April 18 , 2006 FINE, BOGGS, COPE & PERKINS, LLP 

 

BY: __ /s/____ ______________________

 David Hosilyk, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 LEXUS OF SERRAMONTE, SONIC 

 AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and FIRST 

 AMERICA AUTOMOTIVE 

 ORDER 

For good cause showing, the Court hereby continues the discovery cut off in this matter to 

July 31, 2006. 

 

It is so ordered. 4/24/06 

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:05-cv-00962-SBA Document 31 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 3