Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02295-JAH-CAB

Document 7

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 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

Paul D. Jackson, Cal. St. Bar No. 59542 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. JACKSON 10951 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 1-G San Diego, CA 92121-1613 Voice (858) 552-4900 Fax (858) 552-4904 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE J. JONES, Plaintiff, v. DONALD C. WINTER in his official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant. __________________________________________ 1.

Civil Case No.: 07cv2295 JAH (CAB) REPORT OF PARTIES' FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) PLANNING MEETING AND PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN

Rule 26(f) meeting: Pursuant to this Court's Order, Paul D. Jackson, representing

Plaintiff, and Timothy C. Stutler, Assistant U.S. Attorney representing Defendant Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Department of the Navy ("Defendant" or "the Secretary"), conferred by e-mail on April 2-4, 2008, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of this case, to arrange for the disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan. 2. Pre-discovery disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1): The parties plan to serve their

disclosures on or before April 21, 2008 via mail delivery, in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Order dated March 12, 2008. 3. Discovery Plan: The parties agree the subjects on which discovery may be needed

include: (a) whether Plaintiff was subjected to age, race, and/or national origin discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101

Case 3:07-cv-02295-JAH-CAB

Document 7

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq., respectively, or unjustly constructively discharged in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act (codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.); (b) whether Plaintiff timely and/or fully exhausted his administrative remedies as required by law; (c) whether Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to any of the other affirmative defenses set forth in Defendant's Answer to the Complaint; (d) the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged damages, economic and/or noneconomic, if any; and, (e) the existence of any offsets to Plaintiff's alleged damages. The parties do not believe that discovery should be conducted in phases and believe that fact discovery can be completed within nine months. 4. Agreed Discovery: The parties agree that the limitations on discovery imposed under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under the Local Rules for the Southern District of California are sufficient in this case, but each party reserves the right to later request modifications of such limitations if deemed necessary. The parties do not presently believe that any other limitations are needed. The parties agree any records covered by the Privacy Act will be kept confidential from third parties except for trial preparation purposes. 5. Expert testimony: The parties have preliminarily determined that expert testimony is

not necessary, but reserve the right to designate expert(s) and provide retained expert report(s) in accordance with the Court's Case Management Order. DATED: April 4, 2008 KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney s/ Timothy C. Stutler TIMOTHY C. STUTLER Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for the United States of America

LAW OFFICE OF PAUL D. JACKSON DATED: April 4, 2008 s/ Paul D. Jackson PAUL D. JACKSON, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff

26 27 28

THE PARTIES' PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)

Civil Case No.: 07cv2295 JAH (CAB) Page 2