Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00052-SLR Document 47 Filed 08/21 /2008 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AUBREY WESTON, et al., I
Plaintiff, * Civil Action No. l:07—cv—00052
v. I

MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., et al. I
Defendants. I
/
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO CHANGE TRIAL DATE
Defendants Mountaire, et al respectfully oppose Plaintiffs’ request to move the
trial date from December l5, 2008 to September 29, 2008. In support of this opposition,
Mountaire states as follows:
l. The original trial date was chosen in a telephone conference on March 17,
2008 with the participation of counsel for both sides. The scheduling order (D.I. 23)
allows time for orderly preparation of this case, including motions for summary
judgment, motions in limine, preparation of a pretrial order, and a pretrial conference.
Experience in the Davis case teaches the benefit of orderly preparation.
2. The original Complaint contained one claim, i.e., that the Plaintiffs were
improperly classified as exempt from overtime. On August ll, 2008, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint, adding allegations of retaliation. Those claims also require

Case 1:07-cv-00052-SLR Document 47 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 3
investigation and thorough preparation for trial. Furthermore, one of the individual
Defendants added by amendment, Bruce West, has not been served with process.
3. Magistrate Judge Thynge has scheduled a settlement conference for September
25, 2008. Unlike the Davis case, in this case Mountaire believes that a settlement
conference would be useful. Indeed, on August l8, 2008, Judge Thynge called counsel
for Mountaire to ask whether, in light of the verdict in Davis, Mountaire had an interest in
participating in a settlement conference in this case. Mountaire counsel said to Judge
Thynge that Mountaire would be interested in attempting to reach a reasonable settlement
in light of the cost and burden of litigation. That incentive to explore settlement would
be lost if Mountaire were required to prepare to start trial a few days after the settlement
conference.
4. Plaintiffs’ motion to change the trial date was prompted by Mountaire’s
decision to replace some of its Crew Leaders at the Millsboro plant with an independent
contractor. On August ll, 2008, the Court issued an Order (D.I. 40) denying Plaintiffs’
request for a temporary restraining order, finding that there is no irreparable injury.
There is no reason to believe that Plaintiffs’ ability to testify at trial would be prejudiced
by adhering to the existing schedule.
5. Mountaire counsel Arthur Brewer is scheduled to be out of the office from
August 25 to September l4, 2008, initially in collective bargaining for a defense
contractor and then on a pre—paid vacation. Mountaire’s co-counsel Eric Hemmendinger
has a number of active cases that require his attention between now and September 29.
For the foregoing reasons, Mountaire respectfully requests that the Plaintiffs’
Motion to Change Trial Date be denied.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00052-SLR Document 47 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 3 of 3
’ Respectfully s b . ed,
Roger D. andon, Esq.
Bar No. 2460
MURPHY & LANDON
1011 Centre Road, #210
Wilmington, DE 19805
Telephone: (3 02) 472-8100
Facsimil : (30 )472-8135
5%
Arth M. rewer
Eric Hemmendinger
SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP
20 S. Charles St., llth Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 752-1040
Facsimile: (410) 752-8861
Attorneys for Defendants
3