ORDER GRANTING THE GROWER DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO UNTIMELY CLAIMS

EDWARD F. SHEA, Senior District Judge.

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants Green Acre Farms, Inc. and Valley Fruit Orchards, LLC's (collectively, "Grower Defendants") Joint Motion for Summary Judgment as to Untimely Claims, ECF No. 328. The Grower Defendants ask the Court to prohibit the EEOC from 1) seeking monetary or injunctive relief on behalf of any individual who cannot demonstrate he worked within the relevant 300-day period at a Grower Defendant orchard, and 2) refining the class of Claimants. The EEOC clarifies that it is not seeking relief on behalf of any Thai individual who did not work at Green Acre Farms after June 22, 2005, or Valley Fruit Orchards after June 28, 2005; however, the EEOC asks the Court not to set a deadline by which it must identify the Claimants because the EEOC may revise the class of Claimants after reviewing still-to-be-received discovery from Defendant Global Horizons, which answered, ECF No. 294, on January 31, 2013. After reviewing the record and relevant authority, the Court is fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.1

Consistent with the Court's July 27, 2012 Order, ECF No. 178, the 300-day statute of limitations set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) applies to actions brought by the EEOC. Accordingly, the EEOC may not seek monetary or injunctive relief on behalf of a Thai individual who did not have an incident or injury at the Grower Defendants' orchards within the 300-day statute-of-limitations period relevant to the particular orchard at which that individual worked. See EEOC v. Harvey L. Walner & Assoc., 91 F.3d 963, 967 (7th Cir. 1996) (rejecting the EEOC's argument that "it may seek injunctive relief even though it is precluded from asserting compensatory or other relief for the individual claims arising from the unlawful conduct" because it "flies in the face of the plain language of § 2000e-5").

The Court recognizes the EEOC serves an important role in protecting aggrieved employees and deterring future unlawful discrimination. See EEOC v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Calif., 535 F.2d 533, 539 (9th Cir. 1976). Notwithstanding the important public-service that the EEOC provides, the EEOC must still abide by the time limits set forth in § 2000e-5(e)(1). Accordingly, the EEOC may not seek relief on behalf of an individual who did not work at a Grower Defendant orchard during the relevant 300-day period. In its response, the EEOC acknowledges this limitation applies not only to monetary relief but also injunctive relief, stating, "To the extent that Defendants misunderstood EEOC and think that EEOC is seeking Claimant specific injunctive relief for untimely Claimants, EEOC is not."2 ECF No. 336 at 3.

The Grower Defendants have the right to know the Claimants' names so they can engage in discovery and prepare a defense against the claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of the Claimants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court orders the EEOC to notify all Defendants as to the identity of the Claimants by August 2, 2013. This is a reasonable deadline because 1) the EEOC has been aware of the potential claims since the named Claimants filed Charges of Discrimination in April 2006; 2) the EEOC contends it investigated the Charges and issued Findings of Discrimination; 3) the EEOC filed this lawsuit in April 2011; 4) the EEOC has conducted discovery, including reviewing the Global invoices provided by the Grower Defendants in the fall of 2012; and 5) Global began participating in this lawsuit in January 2013. Given the length of time the EEOC has had to ascertain the individuals who worked at each orchard and the time frames they so worked, the Court finds an August 2, 2013 deadline is reasonable. This deadline provides the EEOC with more than fifty additional days to identify the Claimants. Defendants then have approximately eight months to engage in discovery pertaining to the Claimants.

For the above-given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Grower Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment as to Untimely Claims, ECF No. 328, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel.