Preview
1 DATED: September , 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2
3
4 By:
KEITH A. JACOBY
5
Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
6
7 DATED: September ___,23 2022 FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
8
9
By: /s/ Sandra C. Isom
10
SANDRA C. ISOM
11
Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)
shaun@setarehlaw.com
2 William M. Pao (SBN 219846)
william@setarehlaw.com
3 Nolan E. Dilts (SBN 328904)
nolan@setarehlaw.com
4 SETAREH LAW GROUP 7/27/2022
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
5 Beverly Hills, California 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
6 Facsimile (310) 888-0109
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
HASIM A. MOHAMMED
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12 COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION
13
14 HASIM A. MOHAMMED, on behalf of himself Case No. 21-CIV-05619
and all others similarly situated,
15 Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable
Plaintiff, Danny Y. Chou, Department 22
16
vs. [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
17
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a
18 Delaware corporation; FEDEX
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
19 FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas Complaint Filed: October 18, 2021
corporation; FEDEX CORPORATE Trial Date: None
20 SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT
21 & BROKERAGE, INC., a New York
corporation; FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS
22 TRADE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
23 inclusive,
24 Defendants.
25
26
27
28
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 MICHAEL S. FREY (SBN 216100)
michael.frey@fedex.com
2 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
2601 Main Street, Suite 340
3 Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 862-4638
4
Attorney for Defendant FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
5
CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN, SBN 239089
6 christopher.ahearn@fedex.com
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
7 3620 Hacks Cross Rd., Bldg. B-3
Memphis, Tennessee 38125
8 Telephone: (949) 798-9090
9 Attorney for Defendants FEDEX CORPORATION and FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.
10 MATTHEW B. GOLPER (SBN 275979)
mgolper@brgslaw.com
11 BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
600 Anton Blvd., 11th Floor
12 Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (626) 375-8144
13
Attorneys for Defendants FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE, INC.
14 and FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, LLC
15 KEITH A. JACOBY, SBN 150233
kjacoby@littler.com
16 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
17 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 772-7284
18
Attorneys for Defendant FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
19
SANDRA C. ISOM, SBN 157374
20 scisom@fedex.com
FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
21 Litigation Affairs
8285 Tournament Dr.
22 Memphis, TN 38125-1745
Telephone: 901-434-8526
23
Attorney for Defendant FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
24
25
26
27
28
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 This [Proposed] Joint Discovery Plan is submitted by Plaintiff HASIM A. MOHAMMED
2 (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff”), and Defendants FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION (hereinafter,
3 “FedEx Express”), FEDEX CORPORATION (hereinafter, “FedEx Corp.”), FEDEX FREIGHT,
4 INC. (hereinafter, “FedEx Freight”), FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter,
5 “FedEx Services”), “Defendant”), FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT AND
6 BROKERAGE, INC. and FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, LLC (hereinafter
7 collectively, the “FedEx Trade Networks Defendants”) in advance of the Case Management
8 Conference scheduled for July 28, 2022. Hereinafter, such defendants shall be referred to
9 collectively as the “Defendants”, and Plaintiff and Defendants shall be referred to collectively as
10 the “Parties.”
11 I. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 The parties have a dispute as to the scope of discovery which is summarized below:
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 Plaintiff’s Position: Discovery will be conducted on the allegations and claims contained
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14 within Plaintiff’s operative Complaint and the denials and defenses raised in Defendants’ Answer.
15 Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ position to perform four phases of discovery is unduly
16 cumbersome and does not benefit the Parties or the Court. Plaintiff proposes, consistent with
17 Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020), that bifurcation between
18 class certification and merits discovery is the only limitation on discovery. Any further limitation
19 on discovery is not only unwarranted but is unnecessary at this time given that Defendants have
20 stated no more than “speculative” concerns regarding the scope of discovery with no demonstration
21 of prejudice. Order Overruling Demurrer and Denying Motion to Strike, June 6, 2022, p.10.
22 First, Defendants’ contention that discovery should be limited to a two-year California-only
23 class completely disregards this Court’s ruling denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike the national
24 class definition. The Court did not accept Defendants’ arguments that this case is so limited.
25 Moreover, Defendants could have but never asserted in their demurrer and motion to strike that the
26 FCRA claim should be limited to just a two-year class. Any “facts” asserted by Defendants to
27 support limiting the class to a two-year California-only class is not only self-serving but wholly
28 disputed.
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 1
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 Second, Defendants’ contentions regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s case do not serve as a
2 limitation on Plaintiff’s right to conduct discovery on the merits; Plaintiff and this Court are not
3 bound to accept Defendants’ untested and unsupported contention that Plaintiff cannot certify the
4 class in this matter without the opportunity to conduct discovery as to those contentions. This Court
5 expressly stated in its June 6, 2022 Order that “the Court cannot conclude at this time that there is
6 no reasonable possibility that Plaintiff can establish a nationwide class.” In fact, on or about June
7 10, 2022 Plaintiff’s counsel certified a 5-year class in a case asserting similar claims with almost
8 400,000 putative class members in Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., Case No. 19CIV00644 also
9 pending in this Court before the Honorable Robert D. Foiles. Defendants’ argument with respect to
10 whether the FCRA claims have merit as to each and every Defendant can be and are more
11 appropriately raised when opposing Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, not at the pleading
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 stage.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 Third, Defendants misrepresent the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s representations at the hearing,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14 and the ruling in Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020). To be clear,
15 Plaintiff confirmed that this Court has broad and inherent authority to control litigation before it,
16 and that includes discovery and how it is conducted by the parties. But Defendants take this many
17 steps further by: (1) arguing discovery must be broken into four distinct phases; (2) arguing
18 discovery must be limited to the point that it, in effect, serves to grant the motion to strike that this
19 Court has denied; and (3) implying that the court in Molock held that nationwide discovery on
20 Plaintiff’s claims here is “squarely foreclosed” by Supreme Court precedent, and that Plaintiff and
21 the Court somehow agreed with this implication. In reality, Molock dismissed Whole Foods’
22 concerns about the burdens of nationwide class discovery, noting that “concerns about discovery
23 costs must yield to Supreme Court precedent, which makes clear that putative class members are
24 nonparties prior to class certification.” Id. at 299. Molock did not limit class discovery in the manner
25 proposed by Defendants.
26 Plaintiff’s discovery is narrow and is not unduly burdensome. This is evidenced by Plaintiff
27 serving written discovery consisting of 11 interrogatories, 8 requests for production, and 4 form
28
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 2
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 interrogatories.1 Plaintiff intends to seek a list of class members, exemplar copies of disclosure
2 forms which were presented to class members, the dates that each form was in use, the number of
3 class members who viewed each form, and evidence regarding Defendants’ contentions for class
4 certification, liability, and jurisdictional concerns.
5 Defendants’ Position: Discovery should be limited in scope and conducted in phases. (MTS
6 Ruling, 6/6/22, p. 6: “But this Court, like federal district courts, has the ability ‘to limit unnecessary
7 or overly burdensome requests, including bifurcating class and merits discovery.’”) The reasons for
8 these limitations are as follows:
9 First, Plaintiff’s claim is time barred in its entirety by the FCRA’s two-year statute of
10 limitations (15 U.S.C. § 1681p). The FCRA requires a plaintiff to bring an action within the earlier
11 of “(1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for [the
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 employer's] liability; or (2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 liability occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. A two-year limitations period applies if a "reasonably diligent
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14 plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation." Drew v. Equifax Information
15 Services, LLC., 690 F.3d 1100, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). Importantly, where, as here, an employer
16 expressly tells a plaintiff his employment is contingent on obtaining a satisfactory consumer report
17 about him, and the plaintiff then starts work, courts deem the plaintiff to be on constructive notice
18 of the fact the defendant obtained his consumer report, i.e., the fact giving rise to his disclosure and
19 authorization claim. Ruiz v. Shamrock Foods Company, 804 Fed.Appx. 657, 661 (9th Cir. 2020)
20 (affirming dismissal of background check claims and applying two-year statute of limitations
21 because employee was on constructive notice when offer letter stated background check was
22 condition of employment); Rodriguez v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc., 388 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1104 (N.D.
23 Cal. 2019), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 813 F.Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2020) (two-year statute
24 of limitations applies as employee was on constructive notice that her employer retrieved a
25 background check on her because her job offer was contingent on a satisfactory result); Berrellez v.
26
27
1
The parties have since stipulated to extend the date by which Defendants must serve their
28 responses until 30 days after the July 28, 2022 Case Management Conference.
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 3
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 Pontoon Sols., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01898-CAS(FFMx), 2016 WL 5947221, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13,
2 2016), aff'd, 775 F. App'x 357 (9th Cir. 2019) (barring claims based on two year statute of limitations
3 because employee was on constructive notice when he signed consent forms stating he was aware a
4 background check would be performed). Here, Plaintiff was sent a copy of his background check
5 on November 14, 2018, establishing that Plaintiff knew or should have known of the facts
6 underlying this lawsuit as of that date. This is more than two years prior to his filing of his complaint
7 in this action on October 21, 2022. Consequently, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed.
8 Second, the Defendants other than FedEx Express also maintain that Plaintiff’s claims
9 against them have no merit because Plaintiff only applied for employment with FedEx Express,
10 which is the only defendant with any connection to Plaintiff’s FCRA notice, and is the only
11 defendant who conducted a background check on Plaintiff. Under the FCRA, the allegedly unlawful
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 act at issue is conducting a background check, albeit with an (allegedly) defective FCRA notice.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 506 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[A] prospective employer does not violate
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14 Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) by providing a disclosure that violates the FCRA's disclosure requirement.
15 [Citations.] The employer violates the FCRA only where, after violating its disclosure procedures,
16 it 'procure[s] or cause[s] to be procured' a consumer report about the job applicant. See 15 U.S.C.
17 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).").
18 Third, Defendants also maintain that Plaintiffs putative class claims are geographically
19 limited by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017)
20 137 S. Ct. 1773 to claims arising in the State of California. Bristol-Myers requires a plaintiff to
21 demonstrate specific jurisdiction for each specific claim at issue. Id. at 1781. This limits the putative
22 class to California based claims only. David L. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal. App. 5th 359 ;
23 Rivelli v. Hemm (2020) 67 Cal. App. 5th 380.
24 Fourth, Defendants also maintain that the disclosure provided to him by FedEx Express was
25 a legally compliant disclosure. Plaintiff has not provided any legal deficiencies during meet and
26 confers on the disclosure.
27 Consistent with the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike (“Plaintiff acknowledged this at
28 the hearing and agreed that the limits suggested by the D.C. Circuit in Molock would be equally
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 4
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 applicable in this case”) (MTS Ruling, 6/6/22, p. 10), the Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group,
2 Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("Molock") holding, and Plaintiff’s representations made in
3 Court, the Court should limit the scope of discovery, at most, to a two-year period within California
4 only. As the D.C. Circuit in Molock stated: “a district court would necessarily abuse its discretion
5 by permitting nationwide discovery on claims that Supreme Court precedent squarely foreclosed.”
6 Molock, While Defendants would welcome the opportunity to file an early motion for summary
7 judgment on certain issues before any expansive discovery, Plaintiff should – at minimum – not be
8 allowed to conduct a nationwide fishing expedition outside the jurisdictional reach of California
9 Courts with time-barred and otherwise meritless claims against entities not involved with the
10 background check. Permitting such discovery would seemingly ignore the purported goal of this
11 litigation – to address applicant privacy rights.
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 Accordingly, Defendants propose that discovery proceed in the following phases:
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 Phase 1 – The key threshold issues of: (1) the timing of Plaintiff’s background
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14 check disclosures and background check and Plaintiff’s actual or constructive
15 knowledge of same (e.g., whether Plaintiff’s individual claim is barred by the
16 statutory or a contractual statute of limitations); and (2) the identity of the
17 entity(ies) that were responsible for making Plaintiff’s background check
18 disclosures, ordering and reviewing Plaintiff’s background check (e.g., the identity
19 of the proper defendant entity(ies) on Plaintiff’s claim);
20 Phase 2 – Whether the FCRA notice Plaintiff received was compliant;
21 Phase 3 – Class certification (including any limitations on same under Bristol-
22 Myers);
23 Phase 4 – Any remaining issues regarding claims and defenses.
24 II. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
25 The parties have discussed electronically stored information. As guiding principles, the
26 parties agree to meet and confer in good faith concerning issues that arise with respect to the
27 disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, and to use their best efforts to produce
28 electronically stored information in the format preferred by the requesting party, including
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 5
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 reasonable requests for production of such information with metadata intact.
2 III. PRIVILEGE ISSUES
3 The parties have discussed privilege and protection issues. They are negotiating a Stipulated
4 Protective Order, which the parties anticipate filing with the Court in the next few weeks.
5 IV. FORMAT OF DISCOVERY
6 Plaintiff’s Position: Defendants shall coordinate the discovery propounded on Plaintiff so
7 as to limit any duplicative discovery requests.
8 Defendants’ Position: Defendants will attempt to coordinate, but Defendants are
9 represented by different counsel and may have different positions and defenses in the case.
10 V. CLASS LIST
11 Plaintiff’s Position: The Court explicitly declined to limit Plaintiff’s class to California
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 with a two-year statute of limitations. Defendants’ position below is inconsistent with Molock,
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 Plaintiff’s representations at the hearing, and this Court’s ruling denying their Motion to Strike.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14 Plaintiff is willing to engage in a Belaire-West notice process and contends that this should proceed
15 as part of class certification discovery.
16 Defendants’ Position: Defendants assert that, consistent with the Bristol-Myers decision,
17 the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike (“Plaintiff acknowledged this at the hearing and agreed
18 that the limits suggested by the D.C. Circuit in Molock would be equally applicable in this case”),
19 the Molock holding, and Plaintiff’s representations made in argument, any class list is limited to
20 California and a limitation of two years and in line with the proposed briefing schedule. Defendants
21 also assert that any class list should be disclosed only as part of Phase 3.
22 VI. BRIEFING SCHEDULE
23 Plaintiff’s Position: Again, a four-phased approach to discovery along with law and
24 motion does nothing to address the burdens on any party or the Court. Further, Defendants’
25 approach purports to allow them to file at least three additional dispositive motions, which is not
26 conducive to effective and expedient litigation. Plaintiff proposes that the Court set a class
27 certification briefing schedule beginning 13 months from the date of the upcoming Case
28 Management Conference.
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 6
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 Defendants’ Position: As described more fully above in Section I, among other defenses,
2 Defendants maintain that Plaintiff's claims fail because: (1) they are time-barred by the applicable
3 two-year statute of limitations or a contractual statute of limitations; (2) are asserted against entities
4 with no involvement with his employment/application; and (3) fail on the merits as Plaintiff
5 received a legally compliant disclosure. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff should not be allowed
6 to proceed with nationwide discovery on a time barred/meritless case against entities not involved
7 with Plaintiff’s application/employment. Defendant proposes to proceed in a four-phased manner:
8 1. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Statute of limitations & Proper Entity Issue;
9 2. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Legality of Plaintiff’s Disclosure;
10 3. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Class Certification;
11 4. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Any other remaining issues as to claims and defenses.
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 VII. OTHER ISSUES
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 Other than the above the Parties are unaware of further issues to discuss at this time.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 7
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 DATED: July 2 , 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2
3
4 By:
KEITH A. JACOBY
5
Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
6
7 DATED: July 2 , 2022 FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
8
9
By:
10
SANDRA C. ISOM
11
Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery
Plan 9
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State
3 of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address
is 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212.
4
5
On July 27, 2022, I served the foregoing documents described as:
6 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
7 in this action by transmitting a true copy thereof addressed as follows:
8
Matthew B. Golper Christopher Ahearn
9 mgolper@brgslaw.com christopher.ahearn@fedex.com
Jeanette Kerr Letiticia Jackson
10
jkerr@brgslaw.com Letiticia.jackson@fedex.com
11 BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
SAVITT, LLP 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. B-3
12 600 Anton Blvd., 11th Floor Memphis, TN 38125
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attorneys for Defendant FEDEX
13
Attorneys for Defendants FEDEX TRADE CORPORATION and FEDEX
14 NETWORKS TRANSPORT & CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.
BROKERAGE, INC. and FEDEX TRADE
15 NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, LLC Keith A. Jacoby
Kjacoby@littler.com
16
Michael S. Frey William J. Simmons
17 Michael.frey@fedex.com wsimmons@littler.com
jastumpf@fedex.com Garrick Y. Chan
18 kelli.pangle@fedex.com gchan@littler.com
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION LITTLER MENDELSON
19
2601 Main Street, Suite 340 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
20 Irvine, CA 92614 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Attorney(s) for Defendant FEDERAL Attorney for Defendant
21 EXPRESS CORPORATION FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
22
Judge Danny Y. Chou Sandra C. Isom
23 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA scisom@fedex.com
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
24 DEPARTMENT 22 Litigation Affairs
25
COURTROOM K 8285 Tournament Dr.
1050 Mission Rd. Memphis, TN 38125
26 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attorney for Defendant FEDEX FREIGHT,
Dept22@sanmateocourt.org INC.
27
complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
28
///
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
Hasim A. Mohammed, et al. v. Federal Express Corporation, et al.
3 San Mateo Superior Court Case No.21CIV05619
4
I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
5 to the within action. My business address is Federal Express Corporation, 2601 Main Street, Suite
340, Irvine, California 92614.
6
7 On September 26, 2022 I served the within document(s):
8 JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN; PLAINTIFF’S [PROPOSED] ORDER; DEFENDANTS’
[PROPOSED] ORDER
9
10 Electronic Service C.C.P. 1010.6(a)-I caused the above listed document(s) to be
electronically served on the address(es) set forth below.
11
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12 below.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
13 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
prepaid, in the United States Mail at Irvine, California addressed as set forth below.
(310) 888-7771
14
by arranging with First Legal Attorney Service to personally deliver the document(s) listed
15 above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with delivery fees
16
provided for, addressed as follows for collection by Federal Express for overnight
17 delivery at Federal Express Corporation, 2601 Main Street, Suite 340, Irvine, California
92614, in accordance with Federal Express Corporation’s ordinary business practices.
18
19 SHAUN SETAREH (SBN 204514) Attorneys for Plaintiff,
WILLIAM M. PAO (SBN 219846) HASIM A. MOHAMMED
20 NOLAN DILTS (SBN 328904)
SETAREH LAW GROUP
21 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430ss
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
22 Phone: (310) 888-7771
23 shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
24 nolan@setarehlaw.com
calendar@setarehlaw.comFedEx-Mohammed-
25 FCRA@setarehlaw.filevineapp.com
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
11
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 MATTHEW B. GOLPER (SBN 275979) Attorneys for Defendants,
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS
2 15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE,
Encino, CA 91436 INC. and FEDEX TRADE
3
Phone: (818) 508-3700 NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES,
4 mgolper@brgslaw.com LLC
jkerr@brgslaw.com (Legal Assistant)
5
6 CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN (SBN 239089) Attorney for Defendants,
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES,
7 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg B-3 INC. and FEDEX CORPORATION
Memphis, TN 38125
8 Phone: (949) 798-9090
christopher.ahearn@fedex.com
9 letiticia.jackson@fedex.com (Paralegal)
10
KEITH A. JACOBY (SBN 150233) Attorney for Defendant,
11 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
2049 Century park East, 5th Floor
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
Los Angeles, CA 90067
13 Phone: (310) 553-0308
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
kjacoby@littler.com
(310) 888-7771
14
SANDRA C. ISOM (SBN 157374)
15 FEDEX FREIGHT
8285 Tournament Drive
16
Memphis, TN 38125
17 Phone: (901) 434-8526
scisom@fedex.com
18
19 MICHAEL S. FREY (SBN 216100) Attorney for Defendant,
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION FEDERAL EXPRESS
20 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 CORPORATION
Irvine, CA 92614
21 Phone: (949) 862-4638
michael.frey@fedex.com
22 karen.sasso@fedex.com (Paralegal)
23 kelli.pangle@fedex.com (Legal Secretary)
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
12
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
1 Judge Danny Y. Chou San Mateo Superior Court
The Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Department 22
2 Department 22 Complex Civil
Courtroom K
3
Northern Court
4 1050 Mission Road
South San Francisco, CA 94080
5 Phone: (650) 261-5122
dept22@sanmateocourt.org
6 complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
7
8 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
9
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
10 court at whose direction the service was made.
11 Executed on September 26, 2022, at Irvine, California.
9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430
12
SETAREH LAW GROUP
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
/s/ Kelli Pangle
13 Kelli Pangle
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(310) 888-7771
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN
Preview
1 DATED: September , 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2 3 4 By: KEITH A. JACOBY 5 Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 6 7 DATED: September ___,23 2022 FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 8 9 By: /s/ Sandra C. Isom 10 SANDRA C. ISOM 11 Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) shaun@setarehlaw.com 2 William M. Pao (SBN 219846) william@setarehlaw.com 3 Nolan E. Dilts (SBN 328904) nolan@setarehlaw.com 4 SETAREH LAW GROUP 7/27/2022 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 5 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 6 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff HASIM A. MOHAMMED 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION 13 14 HASIM A. MOHAMMED, on behalf of himself Case No. 21-CIV-05619 and all others similarly situated, 15 Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable Plaintiff, Danny Y. Chou, Department 22 16 vs. [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 17 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a 18 Delaware corporation; FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; 19 FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas Complaint Filed: October 18, 2021 corporation; FEDEX CORPORATE Trial Date: None 20 SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT 21 & BROKERAGE, INC., a New York corporation; FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS 22 TRADE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, 23 inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 MICHAEL S. FREY (SBN 216100) michael.frey@fedex.com 2 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 3 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 862-4638 4 Attorney for Defendant FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 5 CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN, SBN 239089 6 christopher.ahearn@fedex.com FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 7 3620 Hacks Cross Rd., Bldg. B-3 Memphis, Tennessee 38125 8 Telephone: (949) 798-9090 9 Attorney for Defendants FEDEX CORPORATION and FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. 10 MATTHEW B. GOLPER (SBN 275979) mgolper@brgslaw.com 11 BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 600 Anton Blvd., 11th Floor 12 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (626) 375-8144 13 Attorneys for Defendants FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE, INC. 14 and FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, LLC 15 KEITH A. JACOBY, SBN 150233 kjacoby@littler.com 16 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor 17 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 772-7284 18 Attorneys for Defendant FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 19 SANDRA C. ISOM, SBN 157374 20 scisom@fedex.com FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 21 Litigation Affairs 8285 Tournament Dr. 22 Memphis, TN 38125-1745 Telephone: 901-434-8526 23 Attorney for Defendant FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 24 25 26 27 28 FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 This [Proposed] Joint Discovery Plan is submitted by Plaintiff HASIM A. MOHAMMED 2 (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff”), and Defendants FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION (hereinafter, 3 “FedEx Express”), FEDEX CORPORATION (hereinafter, “FedEx Corp.”), FEDEX FREIGHT, 4 INC. (hereinafter, “FedEx Freight”), FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter, 5 “FedEx Services”), “Defendant”), FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRANSPORT AND 6 BROKERAGE, INC. and FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, LLC (hereinafter 7 collectively, the “FedEx Trade Networks Defendants”) in advance of the Case Management 8 Conference scheduled for July 28, 2022. Hereinafter, such defendants shall be referred to 9 collectively as the “Defendants”, and Plaintiff and Defendants shall be referred to collectively as 10 the “Parties.” 11 I. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 The parties have a dispute as to the scope of discovery which is summarized below: SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 Plaintiff’s Position: Discovery will be conducted on the allegations and claims contained ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 within Plaintiff’s operative Complaint and the denials and defenses raised in Defendants’ Answer. 15 Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ position to perform four phases of discovery is unduly 16 cumbersome and does not benefit the Parties or the Court. Plaintiff proposes, consistent with 17 Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020), that bifurcation between 18 class certification and merits discovery is the only limitation on discovery. Any further limitation 19 on discovery is not only unwarranted but is unnecessary at this time given that Defendants have 20 stated no more than “speculative” concerns regarding the scope of discovery with no demonstration 21 of prejudice. Order Overruling Demurrer and Denying Motion to Strike, June 6, 2022, p.10. 22 First, Defendants’ contention that discovery should be limited to a two-year California-only 23 class completely disregards this Court’s ruling denying Defendants’ Motion to Strike the national 24 class definition. The Court did not accept Defendants’ arguments that this case is so limited. 25 Moreover, Defendants could have but never asserted in their demurrer and motion to strike that the 26 FCRA claim should be limited to just a two-year class. Any “facts” asserted by Defendants to 27 support limiting the class to a two-year California-only class is not only self-serving but wholly 28 disputed. FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 1 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 Second, Defendants’ contentions regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s case do not serve as a 2 limitation on Plaintiff’s right to conduct discovery on the merits; Plaintiff and this Court are not 3 bound to accept Defendants’ untested and unsupported contention that Plaintiff cannot certify the 4 class in this matter without the opportunity to conduct discovery as to those contentions. This Court 5 expressly stated in its June 6, 2022 Order that “the Court cannot conclude at this time that there is 6 no reasonable possibility that Plaintiff can establish a nationwide class.” In fact, on or about June 7 10, 2022 Plaintiff’s counsel certified a 5-year class in a case asserting similar claims with almost 8 400,000 putative class members in Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., Case No. 19CIV00644 also 9 pending in this Court before the Honorable Robert D. Foiles. Defendants’ argument with respect to 10 whether the FCRA claims have merit as to each and every Defendant can be and are more 11 appropriately raised when opposing Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, not at the pleading 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 stage. SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 Third, Defendants misrepresent the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s representations at the hearing, ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 and the ruling in Molock v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020). To be clear, 15 Plaintiff confirmed that this Court has broad and inherent authority to control litigation before it, 16 and that includes discovery and how it is conducted by the parties. But Defendants take this many 17 steps further by: (1) arguing discovery must be broken into four distinct phases; (2) arguing 18 discovery must be limited to the point that it, in effect, serves to grant the motion to strike that this 19 Court has denied; and (3) implying that the court in Molock held that nationwide discovery on 20 Plaintiff’s claims here is “squarely foreclosed” by Supreme Court precedent, and that Plaintiff and 21 the Court somehow agreed with this implication. In reality, Molock dismissed Whole Foods’ 22 concerns about the burdens of nationwide class discovery, noting that “concerns about discovery 23 costs must yield to Supreme Court precedent, which makes clear that putative class members are 24 nonparties prior to class certification.” Id. at 299. Molock did not limit class discovery in the manner 25 proposed by Defendants. 26 Plaintiff’s discovery is narrow and is not unduly burdensome. This is evidenced by Plaintiff 27 serving written discovery consisting of 11 interrogatories, 8 requests for production, and 4 form 28 FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 2 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 interrogatories.1 Plaintiff intends to seek a list of class members, exemplar copies of disclosure 2 forms which were presented to class members, the dates that each form was in use, the number of 3 class members who viewed each form, and evidence regarding Defendants’ contentions for class 4 certification, liability, and jurisdictional concerns. 5 Defendants’ Position: Discovery should be limited in scope and conducted in phases. (MTS 6 Ruling, 6/6/22, p. 6: “But this Court, like federal district courts, has the ability ‘to limit unnecessary 7 or overly burdensome requests, including bifurcating class and merits discovery.’”) The reasons for 8 these limitations are as follows: 9 First, Plaintiff’s claim is time barred in its entirety by the FCRA’s two-year statute of 10 limitations (15 U.S.C. § 1681p). The FCRA requires a plaintiff to bring an action within the earlier 11 of “(1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for [the 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 employer's] liability; or (2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 liability occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. A two-year limitations period applies if a "reasonably diligent ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation." Drew v. Equifax Information 15 Services, LLC., 690 F.3d 1100, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012). Importantly, where, as here, an employer 16 expressly tells a plaintiff his employment is contingent on obtaining a satisfactory consumer report 17 about him, and the plaintiff then starts work, courts deem the plaintiff to be on constructive notice 18 of the fact the defendant obtained his consumer report, i.e., the fact giving rise to his disclosure and 19 authorization claim. Ruiz v. Shamrock Foods Company, 804 Fed.Appx. 657, 661 (9th Cir. 2020) 20 (affirming dismissal of background check claims and applying two-year statute of limitations 21 because employee was on constructive notice when offer letter stated background check was 22 condition of employment); Rodriguez v. U.S. Healthworks, Inc., 388 F.Supp.3d 1095, 1104 (N.D. 23 Cal. 2019), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 813 F.Appx. 315 (9th Cir. 2020) (two-year statute 24 of limitations applies as employee was on constructive notice that her employer retrieved a 25 background check on her because her job offer was contingent on a satisfactory result); Berrellez v. 26 27 1 The parties have since stipulated to extend the date by which Defendants must serve their 28 responses until 30 days after the July 28, 2022 Case Management Conference. FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 3 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 Pontoon Sols., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01898-CAS(FFMx), 2016 WL 5947221, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2 2016), aff'd, 775 F. App'x 357 (9th Cir. 2019) (barring claims based on two year statute of limitations 3 because employee was on constructive notice when he signed consent forms stating he was aware a 4 background check would be performed). Here, Plaintiff was sent a copy of his background check 5 on November 14, 2018, establishing that Plaintiff knew or should have known of the facts 6 underlying this lawsuit as of that date. This is more than two years prior to his filing of his complaint 7 in this action on October 21, 2022. Consequently, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed. 8 Second, the Defendants other than FedEx Express also maintain that Plaintiff’s claims 9 against them have no merit because Plaintiff only applied for employment with FedEx Express, 10 which is the only defendant with any connection to Plaintiff’s FCRA notice, and is the only 11 defendant who conducted a background check on Plaintiff. Under the FCRA, the allegedly unlawful 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 act at issue is conducting a background check, albeit with an (allegedly) defective FCRA notice. SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 506 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[A] prospective employer does not violate ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) by providing a disclosure that violates the FCRA's disclosure requirement. 15 [Citations.] The employer violates the FCRA only where, after violating its disclosure procedures, 16 it 'procure[s] or cause[s] to be procured' a consumer report about the job applicant. See 15 U.S.C. 17 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)."). 18 Third, Defendants also maintain that Plaintiffs putative class claims are geographically 19 limited by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (2017) 20 137 S. Ct. 1773 to claims arising in the State of California. Bristol-Myers requires a plaintiff to 21 demonstrate specific jurisdiction for each specific claim at issue. Id. at 1781. This limits the putative 22 class to California based claims only. David L. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal. App. 5th 359 ; 23 Rivelli v. Hemm (2020) 67 Cal. App. 5th 380. 24 Fourth, Defendants also maintain that the disclosure provided to him by FedEx Express was 25 a legally compliant disclosure. Plaintiff has not provided any legal deficiencies during meet and 26 confers on the disclosure. 27 Consistent with the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike (“Plaintiff acknowledged this at 28 the hearing and agreed that the limits suggested by the D.C. Circuit in Molock would be equally FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 4 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 applicable in this case”) (MTS Ruling, 6/6/22, p. 10), the Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, 2 Inc., 952 F.3d 293 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("Molock") holding, and Plaintiff’s representations made in 3 Court, the Court should limit the scope of discovery, at most, to a two-year period within California 4 only. As the D.C. Circuit in Molock stated: “a district court would necessarily abuse its discretion 5 by permitting nationwide discovery on claims that Supreme Court precedent squarely foreclosed.” 6 Molock, While Defendants would welcome the opportunity to file an early motion for summary 7 judgment on certain issues before any expansive discovery, Plaintiff should – at minimum – not be 8 allowed to conduct a nationwide fishing expedition outside the jurisdictional reach of California 9 Courts with time-barred and otherwise meritless claims against entities not involved with the 10 background check. Permitting such discovery would seemingly ignore the purported goal of this 11 litigation – to address applicant privacy rights. 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 Accordingly, Defendants propose that discovery proceed in the following phases: SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 Phase 1 – The key threshold issues of: (1) the timing of Plaintiff’s background ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 check disclosures and background check and Plaintiff’s actual or constructive 15 knowledge of same (e.g., whether Plaintiff’s individual claim is barred by the 16 statutory or a contractual statute of limitations); and (2) the identity of the 17 entity(ies) that were responsible for making Plaintiff’s background check 18 disclosures, ordering and reviewing Plaintiff’s background check (e.g., the identity 19 of the proper defendant entity(ies) on Plaintiff’s claim); 20 Phase 2 – Whether the FCRA notice Plaintiff received was compliant; 21 Phase 3 – Class certification (including any limitations on same under Bristol- 22 Myers); 23 Phase 4 – Any remaining issues regarding claims and defenses. 24 II. ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION 25 The parties have discussed electronically stored information. As guiding principles, the 26 parties agree to meet and confer in good faith concerning issues that arise with respect to the 27 disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, and to use their best efforts to produce 28 electronically stored information in the format preferred by the requesting party, including FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 5 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 reasonable requests for production of such information with metadata intact. 2 III. PRIVILEGE ISSUES 3 The parties have discussed privilege and protection issues. They are negotiating a Stipulated 4 Protective Order, which the parties anticipate filing with the Court in the next few weeks. 5 IV. FORMAT OF DISCOVERY 6 Plaintiff’s Position: Defendants shall coordinate the discovery propounded on Plaintiff so 7 as to limit any duplicative discovery requests. 8 Defendants’ Position: Defendants will attempt to coordinate, but Defendants are 9 represented by different counsel and may have different positions and defenses in the case. 10 V. CLASS LIST 11 Plaintiff’s Position: The Court explicitly declined to limit Plaintiff’s class to California 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 with a two-year statute of limitations. Defendants’ position below is inconsistent with Molock, SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 Plaintiff’s representations at the hearing, and this Court’s ruling denying their Motion to Strike. ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 Plaintiff is willing to engage in a Belaire-West notice process and contends that this should proceed 15 as part of class certification discovery. 16 Defendants’ Position: Defendants assert that, consistent with the Bristol-Myers decision, 17 the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike (“Plaintiff acknowledged this at the hearing and agreed 18 that the limits suggested by the D.C. Circuit in Molock would be equally applicable in this case”), 19 the Molock holding, and Plaintiff’s representations made in argument, any class list is limited to 20 California and a limitation of two years and in line with the proposed briefing schedule. Defendants 21 also assert that any class list should be disclosed only as part of Phase 3. 22 VI. BRIEFING SCHEDULE 23 Plaintiff’s Position: Again, a four-phased approach to discovery along with law and 24 motion does nothing to address the burdens on any party or the Court. Further, Defendants’ 25 approach purports to allow them to file at least three additional dispositive motions, which is not 26 conducive to effective and expedient litigation. Plaintiff proposes that the Court set a class 27 certification briefing schedule beginning 13 months from the date of the upcoming Case 28 Management Conference. FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 6 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 Defendants’ Position: As described more fully above in Section I, among other defenses, 2 Defendants maintain that Plaintiff's claims fail because: (1) they are time-barred by the applicable 3 two-year statute of limitations or a contractual statute of limitations; (2) are asserted against entities 4 with no involvement with his employment/application; and (3) fail on the merits as Plaintiff 5 received a legally compliant disclosure. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff should not be allowed 6 to proceed with nationwide discovery on a time barred/meritless case against entities not involved 7 with Plaintiff’s application/employment. Defendant proposes to proceed in a four-phased manner: 8 1. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Statute of limitations & Proper Entity Issue; 9 2. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Legality of Plaintiff’s Disclosure; 10 3. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Class Certification; 11 4. Discovery / Briefing / Hearing: Any other remaining issues as to claims and defenses. 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 VII. OTHER ISSUES SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 Other than the above the Parties are unaware of further issues to discuss at this time. ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 7 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 DATED: July 2 , 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2 3 4 By: KEITH A. JACOBY 5 Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 6 7 DATED: July 2 , 2022 FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 8 9 By: 10 SANDRA C. ISOM 11 Attorneys for FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FEDEX (MOHAMMED) -- 2022 07-14 Proposed Joint Discovery Plan 9 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 3 of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212. 4 5 On July 27, 2022, I served the foregoing documents described as: 6 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 7 in this action by transmitting a true copy thereof addressed as follows: 8 Matthew B. Golper Christopher Ahearn 9 mgolper@brgslaw.com christopher.ahearn@fedex.com Jeanette Kerr Letiticia Jackson 10 jkerr@brgslaw.com Letiticia.jackson@fedex.com 11 BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION SAVITT, LLP 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. B-3 12 600 Anton Blvd., 11th Floor Memphis, TN 38125 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attorneys for Defendant FEDEX 13 Attorneys for Defendants FEDEX TRADE CORPORATION and FEDEX 14 NETWORKS TRANSPORT & CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. BROKERAGE, INC. and FEDEX TRADE 15 NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, LLC Keith A. Jacoby Kjacoby@littler.com 16 Michael S. Frey William J. Simmons 17 Michael.frey@fedex.com wsimmons@littler.com jastumpf@fedex.com Garrick Y. Chan 18 kelli.pangle@fedex.com gchan@littler.com FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION LITTLER MENDELSON 19 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor 20 Irvine, CA 92614 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attorney(s) for Defendant FEDERAL Attorney for Defendant 21 EXPRESS CORPORATION FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 22 Judge Danny Y. Chou Sandra C. Isom 23 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA scisom@fedex.com COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 24 DEPARTMENT 22 Litigation Affairs 25 COURTROOM K 8285 Tournament Dr. 1050 Mission Rd. Memphis, TN 38125 26 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attorney for Defendant FEDEX FREIGHT, Dept22@sanmateocourt.org INC. 27 complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org 28 /// 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Hasim A. Mohammed, et al. v. Federal Express Corporation, et al. 3 San Mateo Superior Court Case No.21CIV05619 4 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party 5 to the within action. My business address is Federal Express Corporation, 2601 Main Street, Suite 340, Irvine, California 92614. 6 7 On September 26, 2022 I served the within document(s): 8 JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN; PLAINTIFF’S [PROPOSED] ORDER; DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER 9 10 Electronic Service C.C.P. 1010.6(a)-I caused the above listed document(s) to be electronically served on the address(es) set forth below. 11 by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 below. SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 13 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully ATTORNEYS AT LAW prepaid, in the United States Mail at Irvine, California addressed as set forth below. (310) 888-7771 14 by arranging with First Legal Attorney Service to personally deliver the document(s) listed 15 above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with delivery fees 16 provided for, addressed as follows for collection by Federal Express for overnight 17 delivery at Federal Express Corporation, 2601 Main Street, Suite 340, Irvine, California 92614, in accordance with Federal Express Corporation’s ordinary business practices. 18 19 SHAUN SETAREH (SBN 204514) Attorneys for Plaintiff, WILLIAM M. PAO (SBN 219846) HASIM A. MOHAMMED 20 NOLAN DILTS (SBN 328904) SETAREH LAW GROUP 21 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430ss Beverly Hills, CA 90212 22 Phone: (310) 888-7771 23 shaun@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com 24 nolan@setarehlaw.com calendar@setarehlaw.comFedEx-Mohammed- 25 FCRA@setarehlaw.filevineapp.com 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 11 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 MATTHEW B. GOLPER (SBN 275979) Attorneys for Defendants, BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP FEDEX TRADE NETWORKS 2 15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor TRANSPORT & BROKERAGE, Encino, CA 91436 INC. and FEDEX TRADE 3 Phone: (818) 508-3700 NETWORKS TRADE SERVICES, 4 mgolper@brgslaw.com LLC jkerr@brgslaw.com (Legal Assistant) 5 6 CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN (SBN 239089) Attorney for Defendants, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, 7 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg B-3 INC. and FEDEX CORPORATION Memphis, TN 38125 8 Phone: (949) 798-9090 christopher.ahearn@fedex.com 9 letiticia.jackson@fedex.com (Paralegal) 10 KEITH A. JACOBY (SBN 150233) Attorney for Defendant, 11 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC. 2049 Century park East, 5th Floor 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 Los Angeles, CA 90067 13 Phone: (310) 553-0308 ATTORNEYS AT LAW kjacoby@littler.com (310) 888-7771 14 SANDRA C. ISOM (SBN 157374) 15 FEDEX FREIGHT 8285 Tournament Drive 16 Memphis, TN 38125 17 Phone: (901) 434-8526 scisom@fedex.com 18 19 MICHAEL S. FREY (SBN 216100) Attorney for Defendant, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION FEDERAL EXPRESS 20 2601 Main Street, Suite 340 CORPORATION Irvine, CA 92614 21 Phone: (949) 862-4638 michael.frey@fedex.com 22 karen.sasso@fedex.com (Paralegal) 23 kelli.pangle@fedex.com (Legal Secretary) 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 12 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 1 Judge Danny Y. Chou San Mateo Superior Court The Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Department 22 2 Department 22 Complex Civil Courtroom K 3 Northern Court 4 1050 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 5 Phone: (650) 261-5122 dept22@sanmateocourt.org 6 complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org 7 8 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 9 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this 10 court at whose direction the service was made. 11 Executed on September 26, 2022, at Irvine, California. 9665 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 430 12 SETAREH LAW GROUP BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 /s/ Kelli Pangle 13 Kelli Pangle ATTORNEYS AT LAW (310) 888-7771 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 [PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN