Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Bulmaro Orozco v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 5, 2012

BULMARO OROZCO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY, EAGLE REFINERY, AND DOES 1 - 50, INCLUSIVE,,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Charles R. Breyer United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE MEDIATION

Date Action Filed: October 11, 2011

Plaintiff Bulmaro Orozco and Defendant Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, 25 collectively "the Parties", by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: 26

1. WHEREAS, this action was filed on October 11, 2011.

2. WHEREAS, the Court held an initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") on March 16, 2012. At the CMC, the Court set July 13, 2012 as the deadline for the Parties to 3 complete mediation. 4 5 of Action alleged is for disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, 6 failure to accommodate disability, and failure to prevent discrimination in violation of 7 California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Second Cause of Action alleged is for 8 retaliation for taking medical leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act. The Third 9

3. WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges three causes of action. The First Cause Cause of Action alleged is for tortious discharge in violation of public policy. Among other items 10 of alleged damage, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for alleged "emotional distress, 11 embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish." 12 13 claim for emotional distress damages, Defendant began the process in January 2012 of seeking 14 Permanente ("KP"). 16

4. WHEREAS, because Plaintiff's alleged disability is issue in the case, as well as his Plaintiff's medical and psychiatric records from his treating health care providers at Kaiser 15

5. WHEREAS, due to various mishaps described infra, KP has yet to release any of Plaintiff's psychiatric records. 18

19 counsel with a KP Authorization for Use or Disclosure of Patient Health Information 20

("Authorization") and asked that the Authorization be signed and returned to defense counsel so 21 that the subject medical and psychiatric records could then be subpoenaed from KP. 22

23 counsel, but instead delivered it to KP. As a result, a new Authorization needed to be prepared to 24 begin the subpoena process. Thus, on March 15, 2012, defense counsel provided a new 25

8. WHEREAS, Plaintiff promptly signed the Authorization on March 26. However, 27 it was inadvertently not provided to defense counsel until April 16, 2012. 28

6. WHEREAS, in a January 25, 2012 letter, defense counsel provided Plaintiff's

7. WHEREAS, although Plaintiff signed the Authorization, he did not return it to his

Authorization to Plaintiff's counsel via e-mail. 26

2 on KP. Unfortunately, Plaintiff's signature on the Authorization was dated March 26, 2013 and 3

10. WHEREAS, the process of obtaining a signed Authorization thus began anew in

June 2012 when the error was discovered. While Defendant has received some of Plaintiff's 6 medical records from KP, it has not yet received Plaintiff's psychiatric records which are relevant 7 to Plaintiff's alleged mental disability and emotional distress claim. 8

9 before commencing Plaintiff's deposition. In addition, Defendant's efforts to obtain key 10 documents from Plaintiff's union has, to date, been unsuccessful. A subpoena requesting the 11 production of various documents from Plaintiff's union was served on May 17, 2012. (An earlier 12 subpoena was, at the Union's request, served on the Union's counsel, but the Union then claimed 13 improper service.) No response or objections were received by the June 1, 2012 deadline to 14 respond. It appears it may become necessary for Court intervention to enforce the subpoena. 15

30, 2012. 18

19 mediation until after certain depositions have occurred, including Plaintiff's deposition and that of 20 his former supervisor, John Zamarripa, as well as a person most knowledgeable at Tesoro 21 concerning the reasons for Plaintiff's termination. In addition, mediation would be more 22 productive if scheduled to occur after the above mentioned arbitration. 23

9. WHEREAS, the Authorization and accompanying subpoena were thereafter served

KP would not honor a post-dated Authorization. 4

11. WHEREAS, defense counsel would prefer to have these key documents in hand

12. WHEREAS, in addition to this litigation, Plaintiff is pursuing a grievance against

Defendant relating to his termination. An arbitration of that grievance is set to begin on August 17

13. WHEREAS, the Parties believe that it would not be productive to engage in

14. WHEREAS, the undersigned defense counsel has a family vacation planned for

September 2-11, 2012. 25

26 enter an Order continuing the deadline to complete mediation for 90 days (i.e., to October 11, 27

2012). 28

NOW THEREFORE, all Parties hereto stipulate and agree, and request, that the Court

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

DATED: June 29, 2012 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 5 6 By:/s/ Eden Anderson William J. Dritsas Eden Anderson Attorneys for Defendant TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY DATED: June 29, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF RANDAL M. BARNUM 11 12 By:/s/ Randal M. Barnum Randal M. Barnum Carrie E. Croxall Attorneys for Petitioner BULMARO OROZCO

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case Management Conference continued to October 12, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.

Charles R. Breyer Judge

20120705

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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