Finder v. Leprino Foods Company ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JERROD FINDER, on behalf of himself CASE NO. 1:13-cv-02059-AWI-BAM and a class of others similarly situated, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DISCOVERY PERIOD 9 v. 10 LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a 11 Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a 12 Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 On November 15, 2016, the Court consolidated Finder v. Leprino, 1:13-cv-2059-AWI- 17 BAM and Talavera v. Leprino, 1:15-cv-105-AWI-BAM. See Doc. No. 63. In issuing its order, 18 the Court acknowledged that “[i]n Talavera, the parties have completed class certification-related 19 discovery and [filed] a motion for class certification,” but “[i]n Finder, the Court understands that 20 no discovery has been conducted.” Id. at 6. This distinction in discovery status is significant 21 because the pending Talavera motion for class certification covers only the time period between 22 01/21/2011 and 09/12/2016 while the time period covered in Finder dates back to 12/17/2009. Id. 23 at 6, 8; see also Doc. No. 136 at 1-2. In other words, discovery and class certification briefing are 24 complete for the time period between 01/21/2011 and 09/12/2016 but not for the earlier time 25 period between 12/17/2009 and 01/20/2011. Accordingly, the Court noted it would be required to 26 both “maintain separate discovery procedures” and “delay [] the Talavera Action to allow 27 discovery in the Finder Action.” Doc. No. 63 at 6, 8. 28 1 In light of the parties’ representation that no discovery has been conducted for Plaintiffs 2 |claims covering the time period between 12/17/2009 and 01/20/2011, it is appropriate to have the 3 | parties jointly file a Discovery Plan to investigate Plaintiffs claims covering this time period. See 4 | Ramirez v. Zimmerman, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81336, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2019) (“Following 5 | the consolidation, the parties submitted a joint discovery plan, the Court held a case management 6 | conference, and issued a Consolidated Scheduling Order.”); Vazquez v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., US. Dist. LEXIS 67163, *3 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018) (stating “several cases were 8 | consolidated to the present action and the parties were ordered to file a new Joint Discovery Plan 9 |to ‘supersede the Joint Discovery Plan’ previously filed”); Rainero v. Archon Corp., 2013 U.S. 10 | Dist. LEXIS 159696, *3-4 (D. Nev. Nov. 7, 2013). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 12 1. as soon as possible but no later than ten (10) days from service of this Order, the 13 parties shall jointly file a Discovery Plan regarding Plaintiff's claims covering the time 14 period between 12/17/2009 and 01/20/2011. The Discovery Plan shall include dates 15 when the parties are required to file supplemental briefing to the pending Talavera 16 motion for class certification to account for this time period. 17 2. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for purposes of reviewing the 18 Discovery Plan and setting a new scheduling order. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 91 Dated: _ September 27, 2022 —= Z : Cb it — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28