Preview
14
is
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)
shaun@setarehlaw.com
William M. Pao (SBN 219846)
william@setarehlaw.com
Alexandra R. McIntosh (SBN 320904)
alex@setarehlaw.com
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
Attorneys for Plaintiff SYLVESTER LACY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, Case No. 17-cv-310761
and all other similarly situated,
Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable
Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5
Plaintiffs,
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
v. CONFERENCE STATEMENT
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: May 22, 2017
Trial Date: Not Set
Defendants.
Case No. 17-cv-313651
SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself,
and all other similarly situated, and the general | Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable
public, Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5
Plaintiff,
v.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; | Complaint Filed: July 27, 2017
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Trial Date: Not Set
Defendants.
Page 1 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
aes Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTwon
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
| SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
NORTH AMERICAN PHILIPS CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; RYDER SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; PHILIPS
ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
NORTH AMERICAN PHILIPS CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; RYDER SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida
corporation; KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
Page 2
Case No.: 17-cv-310761
Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable
Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5
Complaint Filed: May 22, 2017
Trial Date: Not Set
Case No.: 17-cv-313651
Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable
Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5
Complaint Filed: May 22, 2017
Trial Date: Not Set
Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT1 | Linda S. Husar (SBN 93989)
2
3)
4
no ow
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lhusar@reedsmith.com
Mara D. Curtis (SBN 268869)
meurtis@reedsmith.com
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
Attorneys for Defendant RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC.
Mark L. Eisenhut (SBN 185039)
meisenhut@calljensen.com
Ellen Cohen (SBN 276458)
rboyer@calljensen.com
CALL & JENSEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 717-3000
Facsimile: (949) 717-3 100
Attorneys for Defendant KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC.
Page 3
Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
Lacy y. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 |
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff SYLVESTER LACY (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants RYDER INTEGRATED
LOGISTICS, INC. (“Ryder”), and KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC. (“Kimco”) (“Ryder” and
“Kimco” as “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), submit this Joint Case Management Conference
statement for the above captioned cases in advance of the Case Management Conference currently set for
August 16, 2019.
I. ADDING PARTIES
Plaintiff does not anticipate adding additional parties at this time.
If. STATUS OF DISCOVERY AND CLASS CERTIFICATION
a. Plaintiff's Position:
Plaintiff served first set of written discovery on Defendants encompassing of Special
Interrogatories (Set One and Set Two), Employment Form Interrogatories (Set One), Request for
Admissions (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Defendants have
served its responses in the related action. Plaintiff has evaluated Defendants responses and
determined that the responses are deficient in many respects.
i. Ryder’s Responses:
With regards to Defendant Ryder’s Responses, Ryder has not provided the class list or any
discovery related to the class members, including payroll and time records. Instead, Ryder
contends that it only conducts security checks at a limited number of locations and seeks to limit
discovery to those locations. Ryder Plaintiff and Ryder are now in the process of meeting and
conferring regarding Ryder’s contention, including the supplemental declarations that were
provided by Ryder. Should the meet and confer efforts fail (including efforts to attend mediation),
and Ryder fails to provide adequate evidence that its security checks are limited to certain
locations, Plaintiff will schedule an informal discovery conference.
ii. Kimco’s Responses:
With regards to Kimco’s responses, on June 12, 2019, Kimco provided supplemental
responses to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests. Plaintiff has reviewed the supplemental
responses and is now in the process of meeting and conferring with Kimco regarding those
responses, including engaging in the Belaire West notice process.
4 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
Page Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff also anticipates deposing Defendants' Person Most Knowledgeable within the
next six months.
b. Ryder’s Position:
Ryder served its first set of written discovery on Plaintiff encompassing Special
Interrogatories (Set One), General Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of
Documents (Set One). After Plaintiff responded, Ryder and Plaintiff engaged in the meet and
confer process related to issues with Plaintiff's responses. Plaintiff has since supplemented his
discovery responses.
Regarding Ryder’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, the Parties have met
and conferred regarding which locations have security checks. Ryder provided an
initial declaration regarding which locations have security checks. Plaintiff did not
believe that declaration was sufficient and asked for further declarations from
individuals in specified positions. The Parties met and conferred on this issue and
Plaintiff provided Ryder with the specific types of individuals and information they
believed necessary in the declarations. Ryder provided Plaintiff with supplemental
declarations containing all the information requested.
Should the Parties not proceed to mediation, Ryder believes that the Parties
still need to substantively meet and confer regarding the actual discovery responses
as to date the meet and confer efforts have focused on the security check issue
noted above.
Ryder noticed Plaintiff's deposition for April 24, 2019, but Plaintiff objected and did not
appear stating only that he was unavailable for deposition. Prior to noticing Plaintiff's deposition,
Ryder had requested dates from Plaintiff multiple times and had not received any response. If the
Parties are not proceeding to mediation, Ryder requests that the Court order Plaintiff to provide
dates for his deposition. Ryder should be permitted to take Plaintiffs deposition prior
to any PMK deposition.
5 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
ei Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTeB W DN
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Kimco’s Position:
On March 19, 2019, prior to the reassignment of the 17cv313651 matter, the parties
participated in an informal discovery conference before Judge Walsh in the Lacy v. Philips matter
(17cv313651). Although the IDC pertained to a separate matter, the issues presented were
identical to the discovery dispute in this action. In the IDC, Judge Walsh agreed that the
definitions employed in Plaintiffs discovery, encompassing all Kimco employees (not only those
allegedly jointly employed by Philips and Ryder at Ryder facilities) exceeded the relevant scope
of the action as determined by Plaintiff's Complaint and LWDA letter. Kimco is a staffing
services agency, which provides employees, on a temporary or temp-to-hire basis, to
hundreds of companies all over Southern California. Kimco’s employees are assigned to
work at customer-operated facilities, ranging from individuals employed in large
warehouses, to administrative/clerical individuals employed in corporate offices, and are
therefore subject to hundreds of different security protocols put in place by the various
facilities’ operators. As these facilities are not operated by Kimco, Kimco cannot have
standard procedures relating to security protocols or control over the security procedures.
Judge Walsh proposed that the discovery be limited to Kimco employees employed at
Ryder facilities following a Belaire-West Notice procedure. Ryder’s counsel interjected, stating
that no other Ryder facilities were relevant other than the two facilities at issue in the now-related
cases and that Ryder had provided evidence to Plaintiff on that point. Judge Walsh left that issue
for the parties to work out. Judge Walsh also agreed that the stay of discovery had only been
lifted as to Plaintiffs individual claim and class certification issues, and that PAGA discovery
could not be used as a back-door to obtain discovery still unavailable in the related class actions.
Following the IDC, the parties continued to meet and confer, with Ryder asserting it could
prove that no other Ryder facility was relevant to the lawsuit and therefore to discovery. The
parties agreed that if Plaintiff could be satisfied as to other Ryder locations, Kimco’s discovery
would be properly limited to the Ryder locations identified in the respective complaints. The
parties further agreed to mutual extensions of Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline. Based on this
Page 6 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. |
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTe@ 8 BM GA we me YW NM
10
12
12
13
14
19
16
a?
18
19 ||.
DATED: Anguat 9, 2019 REED SMITH LLP
ai |
22
23
24
25 |
26
understanding, Plafdtiff' and Kimeo canceled their IDC scheduled with Judge Kubnle in the Lacy
v. Harman matier (T7ev3 10734).
Kino remains wilfing to abide by the agreement, reached at the IDC. and has been waiting
to- hear regarding the resolution of the issue betwen Ryder and Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has
apparently changed his position since the consolidation of the cases.
i. ABR
The’ Parties have agreed to. private mediation to facilitate settlement on a class-wide basis
cat locations with security checks. If the dai i not resolved, Plaintiff reserves the right to
conduct discovery on behalf of‘all non-exempt California employees as plead in the Complaint.
IV, SCHEDULING
‘Tho Parties ask tlie Court to continue the case management conference for sixty (60) days by
which time’ the Parties hope to have agreed upoti a private mediator.
ee Huser
for Defendant RYDER
TED LOGISTICS, INC.
2S 2 wr 7
A a Rt i cb
een A, ARS11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: August 9, 2019 CALL & JENSEN, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
Mt. Ora
Mark L. Eisenhut
Ellen Cohen
Attomeys for Defendant KIMCO STAFFING
SERVICES, INC.
Page 8 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al.
s Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., etal.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT