Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. the Pepsi Bottling Group

June 13, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward R O Judge

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO (SB# 084965) (CA) DAVID OFFEN-BROWN (SB#63321) (CA) CINDY O'HARA (SB# 114555) (CA) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3 San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 625-5653 5 Facsimile: (415) 625-5657 E-mail: 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC 7 JAMES H. BERRY, JR. (State Bar No. 075834) KEVIN R. LUSSIER (State Bar No. 143821) 8 BERRY & LUSSIER A Professional Corporation 9 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, California 90067 10 Telephone: (310) 557-8989 Facsimile: (310) 788-0080 11 E-mail: E-mail: 12 Attorneys for Defendant THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.


Date: T/B/D

Time: T/B/D Courtroom:

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Stipulation to Continue Discovery Cut off and Motion Hearing Deadline and Proposed Order and request the Court to 3 adopt the new schedule proposed below in this case.

aim of reaching a comprehensive settlement resolving this case in its entirety.

participated in mediation in this matter before Catherine A. Yanni, Esq. That mediation did not 9 resolve the case. Since that time, the parties have continued to focus the bulk of their efforts in 10 this matter on resolving this case by settlement. 11

12 necessary to resolve this matter. The parties have identified two proposed mediators who have 13 agreed to serve and will select the additional mediator within approximately one week. The 14 parties will be scheduling a further mediation to be completed by approximately August 15, 2011.

4. As stated above, the parties' primary focus in this matter since the previous mediation has been to negotiate a final settlement resolving the action. As such, the parties have 17 initiated discovery but have not expended the time and resources in completing all required pre-18 trial discovery including a number of depositions; doing so would require expenditures and 19 consume resources so that settlement of this action would be less likely. The parties anticipate 20 that there is a reasonable prospect of settlement of the action following participation in the further 21 mediation session. 22
5. In the event that the parties are not able to fully resolve this action through participation in further mediation, then the parties will need additional time to complete discovery 24 and trial preparation beyond that which is allowed under the current existing schedule. Substantial 25 discovery has been served by the parties, and the parties anticipate that additional discovery (including additional written discovery and multiple depositions) will be required to be completed 27 to prepare the case for trial if settlement is not reached. The current discovery cutoff is July 1, 2

This Stipulation is submitted and based on the following grounds:

1. The parties are and have been engaged in ongoing settlement negotiations with the

2. This case has been unusually difficult to resolve by settlement. The parties have

3. The parties believe that a further mediation session with another mediator is 2011. Without a continuance of the current case schedule, the parties will be required to devote substantial time, resources, and funds to such discovery, which would be mooted by settlement, 2 rather than focus on core matters essential to the settlement process. The parties believe that a 3 reasonable continuance of the case schedule, including the discovery cutoff, will allow them to 4 focus their efforts and resources instead on settlement and will increase the prospects that this 5 case will be resolved by settlement rather than by trial or other proceedings before this Court.

reassigned to the calendar of the Hon. Edward M. Chen by order of June 6, 2011. This Stipulation 8 had been prepared for submission to Judge Patel but had not yet been filed as of the reassignment 9 order. The reassignment order vacated the trial date, pretrial conference, and associated deadlines 10 in this case but did not change the discovery cut off of July 1, 2011 or the deadline to hear 11 motions of August 22, 2011. The reassignment order directed that a joint case management 12 statement be submitted within 15 days, on which action may not be taken prior to the July 1 13 discovery cutoff. Because of the pendency of the discovery cutoff, the parties respectfully request 14 the Court to act on this Stipulation rather than await the joint case management statement. 1

parties received notice that Charging Party Eldridge Davis had filed a motion to intervene in 17 propria persona as a party litigant and to file a proposed complaint in intervention asserting 18 additional claims. The parties have not had the opportunity to determine their positions with 19 respect to the proposed motion to intervene, which must be set and heard as a noticed motion.

That process cannot be completed prior to the discovery cutoff and represents an additional 21 reason for the requested continuance sought by this Stipulation.

23 motions be continued for 120 days to permit them to exhaust settlement possibilities.

entered on February 2, 2011, this Court previously approved a continuance of approximately 90 26 days to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.