Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Butler v. Central Transport, LLC, 17-cv-02710-KJM-CMK. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180725860 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2018
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff Randall Butler ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Central Transport, LLC ("Defendant") (collectively referred to as "the parties") hereby enter into the following Stipulation regarding discovery disclosures: WHEREAS, on May 3, 2018, Plaintiff indicated that intended to amend his Complaint to bring class and/or collective action claims against Defendant; WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the parti
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISCLOSURES

Plaintiff Randall Butler ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Central Transport, LLC ("Defendant") (collectively referred to as "the parties") hereby enter into the following Stipulation regarding discovery disclosures:

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2018, Plaintiff indicated that intended to amend his Complaint to bring class and/or collective action claims against Defendant;

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2018, the parties attended the Court's Initial Scheduling Conference; and,

WHEREAS, at the Initial Scheduling Conference, the parties agreed to engage in certain discovery to allow Plaintiff to determine whether he intends to file a motion to amend his pleadings to bring class and/or collective action claims against Defendant.

WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation, where Defendant agreed to provide responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production within 40 days of the Court's approval of the Stipulation.

WHEREAS, the Court approved this Stipulation on June 6, 2018.

WHEREAS, the parties have revised the language of Plaintiff's Request for Production as stated below from "exempt" to "non-exempt."

WHEREAS, Defendant has requested and Plaintiff has agreed to provide, upon the Court's approval of this Stipulation, a two-week extension for Defendant to provide this information in order to ensure that Defendant is able to provide complete and full discovery responses.

WHEREAS, Defendant has requested a settlement demand from Plaintiff and believes settlement discussions will be facilitated once Plaintiff has Defendant's complete and full discovery responses.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, and respectfully requested that the Court approve the same:

1. Defendant shall have a two-week extension to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories and respond to Plaintiff's request for production listed below:

Interrogatory No. 1:

As to any location in any state where Defendant Central Transport, LLC employs a terminal manager or any person in a similar position, please list the address of each location and the number of such persons at each location.

Interrogatory No. 2:

Please state all facts upon which you base your claim that Plaintiff Randall Butler was an employee exempt from the wage and hour laws of California.

Request for Production:

Please produce all writings upon which you base your denial that Plaintiff Randall Butler was an employee non-exempt from the wage and hour laws of California.

Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of any privilege. Defendant shall provide a privilege log as to any information or document it declines to provide based on privilege.

2. Upon receipt of the information from Defendant, Plaintiff shall have 40 days to inform the Court whether Plaintiff intends to amend his Complaint. If no motion to amend is filed, the parties shall file a joint status report within the next fourteen (14) days providing all the information called for by the Court's standing orders.

3. Other than the discovery described herein, all other discovery shall be stayed until Plaintiff determines whether he will amend his Complaint. In the event Plaintiff moves to amend his Complaint, the parties agree that discovery shall be stayed until the Court determines whether Leave to Amend should be granted.

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION made and entered into by, between, and among the parties to the above-entitled action, as outlined above,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer