JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAURIE MOORE, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§

C.A. NO. 4:22-CV-201-Y

CARVANA, LLC, §

§

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. §

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and this Court’s June 10, 2022 Order (Dkt. 

12), Plaintiff Maurie Moore (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Carvana, LLC (“Defendant”) having 

conducted their Rule 26(f) conference by telephone on June 28, 2022, jointly file this status report 

and proposed scheduling order:

1. A brief statement of the nature of the case, including the contentions of the parties;

Defendant created and maintained a discriminatory hostile and discriminatory work 

environment wherein Plaintiff was targeted because of her sex and subjected to sexual harassment. 

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in a full-time capacity as a Detailer wherein she worked inside in 

a covered car-wash area of Defendant’s building. On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff began her menstrual 

cycle while at work and soiled her undergarments and pants as a result. Plaintiff notified her male 

Supervisor, Marvin (last name unknown), that she soiled her undergarments and pants and 

requested to leave work to change. Plaintiff further notified Marvin she would return to work after 

she changed. Marvin denied Plaintiff’s request. Marvin then demanded Plaintiff undergo a 

physical examination to prove that she was menstruating before he would permit her to leave work. 

Marvin informed Plaintiff that multiple female employees used their menstrual cycle as an excuse 

to leave work, therefore Defendant’s policy provided that a physical examination was required. 

Plaintiff immediately protested the directive and told Marvin she was uncomfortable undergoing 

a physical examination. Marvin threatened that if Plaintiff left without undergoing a physical exam 

first, he would issue Plaintiff an attendance point. Marvin reiterated to Plaintiff that an 

accumulation of 5.5 points is grounds for termination. Due to Marvin’s threats of an attendance 

point and of termination, Plaintiff was left with no option other than to submit to the discriminatory 

and extremely invasive physical examination. Marvin directed a female Line Lead, Darlene Music, 

to physically examine Plaintiff in Defendant’s bathroom to confirm if Plaintiff was in fact 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 16 Filed 07/08/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 59
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PAGE 2

menstruating. Marvin again stated that Defendant’s policy required the physical examination as 

female employees used their menstrual cycle as an excuse to leave work. The realization of a 

physical examination began to set in, and Plaintiff requested once more permission to go home 

temporarily to change her clothes in lieu of the physical examination. Marvin again declined 

Plaintiff’s request and escorted Plaintiff to Ms. Music’s station. While Marvin stood outside the 

door, Ms. Music and Plaintiff entered the bathroom. Plaintiff stood confused and unsure how to 

proceed. Ms. Music directed Plaintiff to pull down her pants in order to prove Plaintiff was on her 

menstrual cycle and soiled her undergarments and pants. Plaintiff complied with Ms. Music’s 

directive and removed her pants which exposed her soiled undergarments and pants. Only after 

confirmation from Ms. Music did Marvin permit Plaintiff to leave work to change her soiled 

undergarments and pants. Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment to Mike (last name unknown), 

Regional Manager, and provided Human Resources with a written complaint. Shortly after, 

Plaintiff was made aware that Ms. Music was in a relationship with a woman, which compounded 

the overwhelming embarrassment and negative emotional toll the harassment and unnecessary 

exposure had on Plaintiff. Following Plaintiff’s protected activity, Defendant took retaliatory 

action and transferred her to a new position in inventory wherein she was forced to work outside 

in the Texas heat. Plaintiff filed her EEOC Charge of Discrimination on August 29, 2019. Tyler 

(last name unknown), Manager and Mike (last name unknown) General Manager further retaliated 

against Plaintiff because of her engagement in protected activity by continuing to isolate Plaintiff.

Prior to her protected activity both Tyler and Mike carried out a normal working relationship with 

Plaintiff which included communicating with her throughout the workday.

a. DEFENDANT

As outlined in its Original Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 10), Defendant 

denies each of the material allegations made by Plaintiff in this matter and asserts affirmative and 

other defenses to the same. Specifically, Defendant denies engaging in any unlawful 

discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation. Rather, any action related to Plaintiff’s employment 

was based solely on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons. Defendant further contends 

that, among other things, Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages are unconstitutional or 

unavailable; that her claim is subject to all applicable statutory caps and limitations; that Defendant 

did not engage in malicious or reckless conduct; and that Defendant had anti-discrimination and 

anti-retaliation policies and procedures in place; and that has at all times exercised reasonable care 

to prevent and correct promptly any alleged retaliatory or discriminatory terms and conditions of 

employment and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative and/or 

corrective opportunities and procedures provided by Defendant.

2. Any challenge to jurisdiction or venue;

The parties do not challenge this Court’s jurisdiction or venue.

3. A brief description of any matters that require a conference with the Court;

The parties do not feel that a conference with the Court is necessary at this time.

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 16 Filed 07/08/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 60
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PAGE 3

4. An assessment of the likelihood that other parties will be joined, identities of potential

parties and an estimate of the time needed for joinder of such parties;

The parties do not anticipate joinder of additional parties to this case. 

5. When the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) will be made or a statement that

the parties have stipulated that those disclosures will not be made or that they are

exempted from making those disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(B);

The parties agree to exchange initial disclosures on or before July 19, 2022. 

6.

a. A very brief statement of the subjects on which discovery may be needed;

PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery related to the allegations raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint and

any affirmative or other defenses raised in Defendant’s Answer. Plaintiff also intends to conduct 

discovery with respect to any expert opinions upon which Defendant may rely. 

Plaintiff intends to serve written discovery, including Interrogatories, Requests for Production 

and/or Requests for Admission. Plaintiff also intends to depose relevant witnesses, any expert 

witnesses designated by Defendant, and potentially any additional fact witnesses identified by 

Defendant.

DEFENDANT

Defendant intends to conduct discovery related to the allegations raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

Plaintiff’s alleged damages, Plaintiff’s mitigation of alleged damages and any other affirmative or 

other defenses raised in Defendant’s Answer. Defendant also intends to conduct discovery with 

respect to any expert opinions upon which Plaintiff may rely. 

Defendant intends to serve written discovery, including Interrogatories, Requests for Production 

and/or Requests for Admission. Defendant also intends to depose Plaintiff, any expert witnesses 

designated by Plaintiff, and any additional fact witnesses identified by Plaintiff. 

b. When discovery should be completed; and

The parties request a seven month discovery period ending on February 3, 2023. 

c. Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused

upon particular issues.

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 16 Filed 07/08/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 61
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PAGE 4

The parties request that discovery not be conducted in phases or limited to any particular issues. 

7. What changes, if any, should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under

the federal or local rules, and what other limitations, if any, should be imposed;

None. 

8. A statement regarding whether any other orders should be entered by the Court

under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c);

The parties do not anticipate that any additional orders need to be entered by the Court at this time.

9. Whether a jury has been demanded;

Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. (Dkt. 1) 

10. Whether the parties will consent to the referral of this case to a United States

magistrate judge, who will preside over all pretrial proceedings and trial (whether

jury or nonjury).

The parties do not consent to referral of this case to a U.S. magistrate judge. 

11.

a. An assessment of the prospects for settlement,

The parties have discussed settlement and agree to explore settlement and to negotiate in good 

faith.

b. The status of any settlement negotiations already conduct, (except that in a

nonjury case the parties shall not disclose settlement figures), and

The parties engaged in initial pre-suit settlement discussions. Plaintiff demanded $295,000 and 

Defendant countered with $5,000. Plaintiff did not provide any responding counteroffer. The 

parties have not reinitiated settlement discussions, however the parties will actively explore 

settlement options as the case progresses.

c. The parties agreement as to a specific date, place and time of a formal

settlement conference at which the parties and their counsel shall appear in

person to discuss settlement of this case.

The parties have agreed to schedule their formal in-person settlement conference for 9:00 a.m. 

(CDT) on Thursday, February 9, 2023 at a location agreed upon by the parties. 

12. An assessment of whether the dispute would be amenable to mediation and if not, why

not;

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 16 Filed 07/08/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 62
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PAGE 5

The parties may agree to non-binding mediation near or after the conclusion of discovery. The 

parties expect to agree on a mediator.

13. A statement that counsel have read the Dondi decision, 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Texas 

1988); 

The parties confirm that counsel on record have read the Dondi decision. 

14. Any other matters relevant to the status and disposition of this case.

The parties anticipate that they will produce some confidential documents or items that should be 

subject to the terms of an agreed protective order entered by the Court. Defendant will prepare a 

protective order for Plaintiff’s review and for filing with the Court at such time as one becomes 

necessary. 

The Parties agree to email service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). 

The following persons should be served for Plaintiff: Eric Rogers

(Eric.Rogers@spielbergerlawgroup), Lisa Scheibly (Lisa.Scheibly@spielbergerlawgroup.com) , 

Robyn Riddell (robyn.riddell@spielbergerlawgroup.com) 

The following persons should be served for Defendant: Kimberly R. Miers (kmiers@littler.com), 

Emily R. Linn (elinn@littler.com), Sandra Mendoza (smendoza@littler.com) and Don Ridenour 

(dridenour@littler.com). 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 16 Filed 07/08/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 63
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN PAGE 6

Respectfully submitted:

By: /s/ Lisa Scheibly 

Eric D. Rogers 

Lisa Scheibly 

SPIELBERGER LAW GROUP

4890 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 950 

Tampa, Florida 33609 

Eric.rogers@spielbergerlawgroup.com 

Lisa.Scheibly@spielbergerlawgroup.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

MAURIE MOORE

By: /s/ Emily Linn

Kimberly R. Miers

Texas State Bar No. 24041482 

kmiers@littler.com 

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

2001 Ross Avenue 

Suite 1500, Lock Box 116 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

214.880.8100 (Telephone) 

214.880.0181 (Facsimile) 

Emily Linn

Texas State Bar No. 24109478 

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 

Austin, Texas 78701 

512.924.7087 (Telephone) 

512.532.6501 (Facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CARVANA, LLC

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 16 Filed 07/08/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 64