Superior Court of the State of California

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

10 Coordination Proceedings Special Title (Rule ) JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION 11 3.550) ) PROCEEDING No. 4750 ) 12 ) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES WAGE ) RIVERSIDE 13 AND HOUR CASES, ) No. RIC120510 ) 14 Included Actions: ) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 15 Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., et ) No. 1265755 al., ) 16 ) COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., ) ORDER 17 ) ) ASSIGNED JUDGE: Hon. Donna D. Geck 18 ) DEPARTMENT: Four )_ HEARING DATE: April 11, 2014 19 ) TIME: 2:00 pm

20 On August 20, 2008 the Court designated this matter as complex litigation under the 21 California Standards of Judicial Administration. On March 13, 2013, Macias v. Little Caesar 22 Enterprises, Inc. et. al., Superior Court of California, Riverside, Case No. RIC 1210510, and 23 Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, 24 Case No. 1265755, were coordinated by this Court and designated as complex litigation under 25 the California Standards of Judicial Administration. 26 The purpose of this order is to establish a case management plan for this complex 27 litigation in order to avoid inconsistent or duplicative rulings, reduce the costs of litigation, assist

Complex Case Management Order - 1 1 the parties in resolving their disputes and reduce the costs and difficulties of discovery and trial.

2 This complex case management order supersedes all prior complex case management orders in

3 this case.

4 On any matter about which this order is silent, the Code of Civil Procedure, other

5 statutes, the California Rules of Court, and the local rules of this Court shall be controlling.

6 On April 11, 2014, a complex case management conference was conducted in this

7 matter. An unofficial copy of this Order may be posted on the Court’s web page at

8 http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/dgeck/ as a convenience to Court and

9 counsel, but the filed order entered by the Court is the only operative order. The parties

10 stipulate and agree that the e-mail by the Court to the e-mail address provided by counsel

11 is equivalent to service as of the date of the e-mail and further notice of this Order is

12 waived.

13 The Court considered at the conference, pursuant to Appendix to California Rules of

14 Court, Div I, section 19(e) (Initial Case Management Conference, Complex Litigation), and Rule

15 212(i) of the California Rules of Court (Case Management Conference, Generally), the following

16 subjects, and makes the following orders:

17 1. SEVERANCE, CONSOLIDATION OR COORDINATION (App. to CRC, Div I,

18 §19(e)(2))

19 2. STATUS OF THE PARTIES AND PLEADINGS

20 2.1. Current Status

21 On May 4, 2010 Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., filed Notice of Removal

22 of Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1265755 to the United States District Court for the

23 Central District of California, with District Court Case No.: 2:10-cv-03343-JFW-SH. The Santa

24 Barbara Court received notice of removal on May 5, 2010. At the May 5, 2010 Complex Case

25 Management Conference, this Court vacated the then scheduled June 23, 2010 Complex Case

26 Management Conference and set this case for a Case Management Conference on January 12,

27 2011 at 8:30 AM in Santa Barbara Superior Court Department Four (Anacapa). The Court also

Complex Case Management Order - 2 1 issued a May 5, 2010 Order After Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Approving

2 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Pending Certified Class Action, and then took that motion off calendar

3 because of Defendant’s removal of the matter to federal court.

4 On June 23, 2010 the United States District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for

5 remand to the Santa Barbara Court. On July 6, 2010 Defendant Little Caesar filed with the

6 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit its petition for permission to appeal, with

7 Case No. 10-80137. On August 27, 2010 the Ninth Circuit denied the Little Ceasars petition. The

8 Santa Barbara Court then restored the case to its Court’s Complex Case Management track.

9 Defendant filed a demurrer regarding Plaintiff Jonathan Macias’ First Amended

10 Complaint, to be heard at the July 12, 2013 Complex Case Management Conference.

11 Defendant’s Demurrer was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff Jonathan Macias subsequently

12 filed a Second and Third Amended Complaint. Defendant filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike

13 regarding Plaintiff Jonathan Macias’ Third Amended Complaint which was heard at the

14 December 20, 2031 Complex Case Management Conference at which time the Court granted

15 Plaintiff Macias leave to amend. Defendant also has served a Section 128.7 motion which it

16 withdrew. On January 6, 2014 Plaintiff Macias filed his Fourth Amended Complaint, in

17 response to which Defendant filed a motion to strike. At the hearing on Defendant’s motion to

18 strike on February 21, 2014, the Court denied Defendant’s motion and ordered Defendant to file,

19 and Defendant did file, an Answer by March 10, 2014.

20 Plaintiff Macias attempted to meet and confer with Defendant regarding his first sets

21 of Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, and while Plaintiff

22 contends that he is entitled to Defendant’s policies, and names and contact information and time

23 and wage records of all aggrieved employees in California under PAGA, Defendant only agreed

24 to produce that information as it pertained to the aggrieved employees who worked at the same

25 store as Plaintiff in Riverside, California. Because the parties had reached an impasse, Plaintiff

26 filed motions to compel this information, currently set to be heard by this Court on April 11,

27 2014.

Complex Case Management Order - 3 1 LCE disagrees with this characterization of the meet and confer process, and

2 continues to be willing to find a solution to the current discovery dispute consistent with the

3 Court’s order denying LCE’s Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff Macias’ Fourth Amended

4 Complaint.

6 3. COUNSEL

7 3.1. Master Counsel List

8 The master list of counsel, their e-mail addresses and the parties is: (App. to CRC,

9 Div I, §19(e)(11)): NAME E-MAIL ADDRESS PARTY 10 Cesar Nava [email protected] SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, and ROCKY TEI and the 11 Class Santos Gomez [email protected] Same 12 Stan Hodson [email protected] Same Stanley Saltzman [email protected] Same 13 Marcus Bradley [email protected] Same Kiley Grombacher [email protected] Same Maria Rodriguez LITTLE CEASAR ENTERPRISES, INC. 14 [email protected] Ben Gipson [email protected] LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC. 15 Raul Perez [email protected] Jonathan Macias Alexandria Witte [email protected] Jonathan Macias 16 Arnab Banerjee [email protected] Jonathan Macias Melissa Grant [email protected] Jonathan Macias 17

18 [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 19 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] 20

21 3.2. Liaison Counsel 22 3.3. Liaison Groups 23 3.4. Pro Hac Vice Admission of Counsel 24 3.5. Trial Counsel 25 The names and addresses of the attorneys who will try the case are (CRC, Rule 26 212(i)(9)): 27 COUNSEL E-MAIL ADDRESS PARTY Cesar Nava [email protected] SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR 28 MORALES, and ROCKY TEI and the

Complex Case Management Order - 4 Class 1 Santos Gomez [email protected] Same Stan Hodson [email protected] Same 2 Stanley Saltzman [email protected] Same Marcus Bradley [email protected] Same 3 Maria Rodriguez [email protected] Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc Ben Gipson [email protected] Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc 4 Raul Perez [email protected] Jonathan Macias Alexandria Witte [email protected] Jonathan Macias 5 Arnab Banerjee [email protected] Jonathan Macias Melissa Grant [email protected] Jonathan Macias 6

7 4. MOTIONS 8 4.1. Preliminary Legal Question Schedule 9 4.2. Class Certification Motion

10 04-13-10 Motion Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Approving Plaintiffs Notice of Pending Certified Class Action With Supporting Declaration of Stanley J Hodson Hrg 5/05/10 3:00pm Dept 4, Filed by Plaintiffs 11 09-15-10 Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs April 13 2010 Filed Motion for an Order Approving Plaintiffs Notice of Pending Certified Class Action With Supporting Declaration of Stanley J Hodson Hrg 10/13/10 9:30am Dept 4, 12 Filed by Plaintiffs

13 Moving Parties Responding Party 14 Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC. 15 TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI 16

17 Responding Party Hearing Submitted Disposition

18 The court grants, in part, the motion of plaintiffs LITTLE CAESAR 12/15/2010 Susana Toledo, Oscar Morales and Rocky Tei to ENTERPRISES, INC. approve their proposed notice of pending 19 certified class action and orders as follows: Notice to class members is necessary. 20 The class members may exclude themselves from the class. 21 The class members shall be notified by first class mail. 22 The content of the notice attached to the motion as Exhibit “F” is approved with the following changes: 23 In ¶ 7 of the notice, plaintiffs shall add: “If you remain a member of the class, you may enter an 24 appearance in the action through counsel.” In ¶ 8, the date selected shall be 60 days from 25 the transmission date of the Notice. Plaintiffs shall bear the cost of notifying the 26 class. However, defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. shall bear the cost of gathering and distributing a class list of current and former 27 managers and non-managerial employees, dividing them into subclasses and providing 28

Complex Case Management Order - 5 their last known contact information. 1 Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. may not urge, either explicitly or implicitly, any class 2 member, whether a former or current employee, to opt-out from participating in this Class 3 Action. The court approves Simpluris, Inc. as class administrator. 4 The court intends to add an order regarding the timing of the notice to class members. The 5 parties shall appear at the December 15, 2010 hearing to discuss the timing of the notice. 6

8 4.3. Class De-Certification Motion

9 06-27-12 filed Motion: Defendant’s Notice and Motion for Decertification with Supporting Declarations of Benjamin M. Gipson and Sonya Kwon, Compendium of Evidence, Request for Judicial Notice, Non-California Authorities, and Proposed Order Hrg 8/15/12 1:30pm Dept 4. 10 07-18-12 Filed Opposition: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Decertification, with supporting 11 Declarations of Stanley J. Hodson and Marcus J. Bradley, and Request for Judicial Notice.

12 08-01-12 Defendant’s Reply in support of its Motion for Decertification. 08-01-12 Supplemental Declaration of Benjamin M. Gipson in support of Defendant’s Reply. 13 08-01-12 Defendant’s Appendix of Non-California Authorities in support of Defendant’s Reply. 08-01-12 Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in support of Defendant’s Reply. 14 08-08-2012 Class Objections to the Evidence and Case Law that Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (1) Supplemental Declaration, (2) Appendix of Non-California Authorities, and (3) Request for Judicial Notice 15 untimely and improperly submitted with the Reply in support of Defendant’s Decertification Motion.

16 08-23-12 Defendant’s Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action. 08-23-12 Declaration of Benjamin M. Gipson in Support of Defendant’s Notice of New Superior Court 17 Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.

08-24-12 Class Objections to Defendant’s August 23, 2012 Untimely Filed and Improperly Submitted Notice of 18 New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.

19 09-28-12 Defendant’s Notice of New California Appellate Court Decisions Upholding Denials of Meal and Rest Period Class Actions after Brinker. 20 10-05-12 Class Objections to Defendant’s September 28, 2012 Untimely Filed Briefing. 21

22 Moving Parties Responding Party 23 LITTLE CAESAR Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND 24 ENTERPRISES, INC. ROCKY TEI, and the Class

25 Responding Party Hearing Submitted Disposition 26 The Court granted in part, defendant Little Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA 08/15/2012 Caesar Industries, Inc.’s motion for 27 TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, decertification of this class action. The Court AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class Continued orders that the class of all persons who are 28

Complex Case Management Order - 6 by minute employed or have been employed by defendant 1 order to Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. in the State of 8/29/2012 California who within four (4) years of the filing 2 of the complaint herein (January 16, 2008) have Continued worked as hourly restaurant employees, 3 by Court including the sub-class of such hourly restaurant minute employees with managerial duties, is decertified order to for purposes of the first, second, third and fourth 4 10/10/2012 causes of action in the first amended complaint of plaintiffs Susana Toledo, Oscar Morales and 5 Continued Rocky Tei. The class of all hourly employees by Court remains certified as to the fifth and seventh 6 minute causes of action, and the sub-class of hourly order to restaurant employees with managerial duties as 7 10/17/2012 to the sixth cause of action.

8 Plaintiffs filed a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal seeking review of this 9 Court’s October 19, 2012 Order decertifying Plaintiffs’ meal period claim on December 18, 10 2012. This was denied by the Appellate Court on February 5, 2013. 11 Defendant anticipates filing a motion for decertification based on new caselaw 12 and evidence as to Plaintiffs’ remaining certified claims if current settlement negotiations are 13 unsuccessful. Should the parties fail to reach a settlement, the Toldeo Plaintiffs intend to move 14 for reconsideration of this Court’s Order decertifying Plaintiffs’ meal break claim in light of the 15 Court of Appeals decision in Faulkinbury vs Boyd & Associates Inc., (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 16 220, as well as several other recent State Court appellate decisions which have issued orders 17 consistent with that issued in Faulkinbury. The Toledo parties request they be allowed to meet 18 and confer and propose a class certification briefing schedule at the May Complex Case 19 Management Conference. 20 On February 19, this Court was assigned as the coordination judge for this matter 21 and Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1210510. 22 Both parties in the Macias matter sought coordination, and Defendant requests that the cases be 23 coordinated before this Court. Plaintiffs do not oppose coordination provided that the matter 24 remains venued in this Court. This matter was coordinated and deemed complex on March 13, 25 2013.

Complex Case Management Order - 7 1 4.4. Demurrers, Motions to Strike and Summary Adjudication Motions (App. to

2 CRC, Div I, §19(e)(7))

4 Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff SUSANA TOLEDO 5 Moving Party Responding Parties 6 LITTLE CAESAR SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, & ROCKY TEI ENTERPRISES, INC. 7

8 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR 4/28/2010 The Court denied this motion. The Court 9 MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI 9:30 a.m. sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s Civil law objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 24 in the Toledo 10 & motion declaration. calendar 11

12 Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff OSCAR MORALES

13 Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI 14 ENTERPRISES, INC.

15 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition

16 SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR 4/28/2010 The Court denied this motion. The Court MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI 9:30 a.m. sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s 17 Civil law objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 23 in the Morales & motion declaration. 18 calendar

19 Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff ROCKY TEI 20 Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI 21 ENTERPRISES, INC. 22 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition 23 SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR 4/28/2010 The Court denied this motion. The Court 24 MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI 9:30 a.m. sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s Civil law objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 24 in the Tei 25 & motion declaration. calendar 26

27 Moving Party Responding Parties 28

Complex Case Management Order - 8 1 LITTLE CAESAR SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the ENTERPRISES, INC. Class 2

3 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition 4 The Court denied defendant Little Caesar SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR 08/15/2012 Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Summary 5 MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and Adjudication. the Class Continued 6 by minute order to 7 8/29/2012

8 Continued by Court minute 9 order to 10/10/2012 10 Continued 11 by Court minute 12 order to 10/17/2012 13

14 Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS

15 Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR JONATHAN MACIAS 16 ENTERPRISES, INC.

17 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition 18 JONATHAN MACIAS July 12, The Court sustained the demurrer with leave to 2013 amend. Plaintiff Macias shall file and serve his 19 1:30 p.m. SAC on or before 7/29/13. Complex 20 Case Management 21 Conference

22 Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 Moving Party Responding Parties 24 LITTLE CAESAR JONATHAN MACIAS ENTERPRISES, INC. 25 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition 26

Complex Case Management Order - 9 JONATHAN MACIAS Taken Off Demurrer taken off calendar when Plaintiff 1 Calendar agreed to amend Second Amended Complaint.

7 Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Moving Party Responding Parties 8 LITTLE CAESAR JONATHAN MACIAS ENTERPRISES, INC. 9

11 JONATHAN MACIAS December The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. 20, 2013 The Fourth Amended Complaint shall be served 12 1:30 p.m. and filed 1/6/2014. The Motion to Strike is Complex deemed as moot. Defendants to file a 13 Case responsive pleading within sixteen (16) days Management thereafter. Conference 14

15 Motion: Motion to Strike as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

16 Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR JONATHAN MACIAS 17 ENTERPRISES, INC.

18 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition 19 JONATHAN MACIAS February The motion to strike as to the Fourth Amended 21, 2014 Complaint was denied. Defendant filed and 20 1:30 p.m. served an Answer on March 10, 2014. Complex 21 Case Management 22 Conference

24 4.5. Discovery Motions

26 4-11-14- Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Set One 27 Moving Party Responding Parties 28

Complex Case Management Order - 10 Plaintiff Jonathan Macias LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC. 1

3 LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, April 11, The motion to compel was granted with a INC. 2014, 2:00 response date of May 15, 2014 4 p.m., Complex Case 5 Management Conference 6

8 02-04-11 Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Response to TEI's Set 1, 2, 3k and Special Interrogatories 1, 9 2, & 3. Declaration; HRG 3-2-11 3:00 SB4, Filed by Susana Toledo et al

10 Moving Party Responding Parties Plaintiffs TOLEDO, MORALES, & LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC. 11 TEI 12 Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition 13 3/2/2011 3:00 p.m. hearing continued to 14 3/16/2011 and taken off calendar.

17 4.6. Other Motions

18 11-19-10 Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay All Further Proceedings and Take Judicial Notice; HRG 12-15- 19 10 3:00 PM SB4, Filed by Defendant

20 Moving Party Responding Parties

21 LITTLE CAESAR Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ENTERPRISES, INC. ROCKY TEI 22

25 The motion to stay is denied. Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA 12/15/2010 TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, 26 AND ROCKY TEI

Complex Case Management Order - 11 1

2 4.7. Special Discovery (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(3))

3 4.7.1. List of Undisputed Facts

4 4.7.2. Defect List 5 4.7.3. Required Statements 6 On or before September 10, 2011 the Toledo parties will agree what, if any, sample 7 of time cards will be produced and used to determine how often managers took meal periods. 8 Any such agreed time cards shall be produced by that date. 9 The Toledo parties have made the following joint progress in identifying the sample 10 of time cards to be used to determine how often managers took meal periods: for the class period 11 beginning January 2004 and continuing, the time cards for one two-week pay-period in early 12 June of each year of the class period and one two-week pay-period in early December of the 13 class period. To date, Defendant has produced electronic spreadsheet data for the December pay- 14 periods for 2005 through 2010, and for the June pay-periods for 2008 through 2010. 15 Arrangements are continuing for production of electronic spreadsheets for the June and 16 December 2004 pay-periods, and for the 2005 through 2008 June pay-periods. Arrangements are 17 also continuing for the production of scanned front-and-back images of the time cards that 18 correspond to each spreadsheet entry. 19 In April of 2011, Defendant communicated that some of the boxes of timecards may be 20 missing, and as part of the above timecard sampling the parties have agreed that if for the sample 21 pay-periods identified here any box of timecards is missing, the Toledo Plaintiffs will select and 22 the Defendant will produce a substitute box of pay-period timecards for data entry and front-and- 23 back scanning. 24 On November 8, 2011 the California Supreme Court heard argument in the Brinker 25 Restaurant case about California meal period and rest break laws, among other issues. And 26 because the ruling, due within 90 days, may have a significant bearing on how the parties 27 continue to pursue the timecard data entry and scanning, the parties have agreed to a stay in the 28

Complex Case Management Order - 12 1 timecard discovery, with correlative extension(s) of deadlines for moving to compel, to allow for

2 issuance and review of the Cal. Supreme Court ruling in the Brinker case. The California

3 Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Brinker case on April 12, 2012.

4 Plaintiff Jonathan Macias has propounded special interrogatories (set one) seeking, inter

5 alia, contact information for aggrieved employees. Defendant has responded to the first set of

6 special interrogatories and the parties are currently meeting and conferring regarding those

7 responses. Plaintiff agreed to postpone filing a motion to compel on the first set of special

8 interrogatories pending a ruling on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike. Defendant

9 agreed that if the motions are denied it will produce the contact information requested. Plaintiff

10 has also propounded Requests for Production of Documents (set one) but the response deadline

11 has not expired. Little Caesars disagrees with this characterization of the meet and confer

12 process, continued to meet and confer with Plaintiff Macias in good faith regarding the

13 appropriate contact procedure for any potential aggrieved parties.

14 Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further responses to these discovery requests to be

15 heard at the April 11, 2014 Complex Case Management Conference.

16 4.7.4. Inspection and Testing

17 4.7.5. Expert Information Exchange 18 4.8. Stages of Discovery 19 4.8.1. Stage One 20 4.8.2. Stage Two 21 4.8.3. Stage Three 22 4.9. Protective Orders (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(4)) 23 Defendant and Plaintiff Jonathan Macias have agreed on a stipulated protective order 24 to facilitate the exchange of informal discovery. 25

Complex Case Management Order - 13 1 4.10. Document Depository (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(9))

2 4.11. Interrogatories

3 4.12. Depositions (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(8))

4 4.13. Discovery Referee (CCP §639(a)(5))

5 4.13.1. Appointment

6 4.13.2. Additional Discovery By Leave Of Discovery Referee

7 5. ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT

8 6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MANDATORY

9 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(5))

10 6.1. Alternate Dispute Resolution (CRC, Rule 212(i)(1)-(2))

11 6.2. Mandatory Settlement Conferences (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(5); CRC,

12 Rule 212(i)(10))

13 All parties shall familiarize themselves with the Department Four web page at

14 http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/dgeck/ and the “Department

15 4:Forms” particularly the “Pre-trial Order” forms and be prepared to provide all information

16 required by the order at the pre-trial conference on the first day of trial.

17 7. TRIAL

18 The Trial date of May 11, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. in this Department was VACATED.

19 The Toledo Parties request a short stay of the 5 year rule in order to facilitate settlement

20 discussions in light of the September 11, 2013 mediation scheduled by the Parties. For good

21 cause, and on the stipulation of the parties, the Court extends the deadline for trial to July 30,

22 2014, and will consider requests for further extensions. The Toledo parties intend to request an

23 additional short stay of the 5-year rule based on the results of their meet and confer

24 communications to set a class certification-briefing schedule at the May Complex Case

25 Management Conference. The parties are presently meeting and conferring regarding such

26 extension.

Complex Case Management Order - 14 1 8. SCHEDULE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES

2 The Court will conduct further complex case management conferences approximately

3 every seven (7) weeks on Wednesday afternoons in this department. (CRC, Rule 212(i)(11)-(12);

4 App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(12)).

5 In order to reduce file congestion:

6 (1) No Courtesy copies shall be delivered to the Court;

7 (2) Where the Court’s orders require only service of a document the parties shall not

8 also file copies of that document.

9 All law and motion matters shall be set for hearing at a complex case management 10 conference. If a matter is not set for a scheduled complex case management conference hearing, 11 the notice of motion shall contain a certificate by counsel for the moving party why special 12 setting is required. 13 On or before the Friday before a scheduled complex case management conference, 14 each party shall file, serve and submit to the Court by e-mail at [email protected] a statement 15 of proposed amendments to or modifications of the then current complex case management 16 order. Microsoft Word is the preferred format. Proposals shall be limited to proposed findings 17 and orders. Argument in the proposed amendments is prohibited. Transmittal letters or e-mails 18 to the Court concerning Proposed Case Management Orders or amendments thereto (other than 19 e-mail transmitting a proposed order) are prohibited and not read by the Court. The Court has 20 authorized only submission of a statement of proposed amendments to or modifications of the 21 then current complex case management order on the Friday before a scheduled CCMC. 22 Supplemental briefs and letters are not authorized. Circumvention by submitting argumentative 23 material in the proposed modifications is prohibited. 24 Electronic copies of the Summary Adjudication Motions and responses and Exhibits 25 thereto may be emailed to the court if of reasonable file size otherwise furnished to the court and 26 counsel on CD or DVD.

Complex Case Management Order - 15 1 Complex case management conferences in this case are set in Department Four as

2 follows:

3 Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

4 Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 3:00 pm

5 Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm 6 Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm 7 Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 1:30 pm 8 Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at: 1:30 pm 9 Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 1:30 pm 10 Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm 11 Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm 12 Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm 13

14 Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 3:00 pm

15 Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 3:00 pm

16 Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm VACATED

17 Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm

18 Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 3:00 pm

19 Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 8:30 am VACATED

20 Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM VACATED 21 Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 3:00 PM 22 Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM continued to Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 300 PM 23 Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM 24 Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM 25 Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 1:30 PM 26 Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM continued to August 15, 2012 27 Wednesday, August 15, 2012 continued by Court minute order to August 29, 2012 28

Complex Case Management Order - 16 1 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 continued by Court minute order to October 10, 2012

2 Wednesday, October 10, 2012 continued by Court minute order to October 17, 2012

3 Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

4 Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM 5 Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM 6 Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM continued to Friday, July 12, 2013 at 1:30 PM 7 Friday, September 27, at 1:30 PM continued to October 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM and further 8 continued to Friday, December 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM. 9 Friday, April 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM advanced to April 11, 2014 @ 2:00 PM 10 Friday, May 30, 2014, at 1:30 PM 11

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated: April 11, 2014 ______15 DONNA D. GECK Judge of the Superior Court 16

Complex Case Management Order - 17