Free Joint Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 1 of 7

1
2 3 4

PRASAD SHANKAR, In Pro Se 2701 East Brookshire Place, Apt. 201 Sioux Falls, SD 57103 Telephone: 954.701.1113 Facsimile: 605.334.4525 prasad ms(5),hotmail.com Plaintiff, In Pro Se

5 6 \j 7 / 8 \J

g ./
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER M E N D E L S O N 50 Wosi San Fernando Sttooi ISili Floor San Jose CA 95113 2303 408 998 4150

ROBERT J. WILGER, Bar No. 168402 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Facsimile: 408.288.5686 rwilger^littler.com Attorneys for Defendant HSBC TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES (U.S.A.) INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRASAD SHANKAR, Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. CV 08 1769 JW (HRL) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: August 25, 2008 10:00 a.m. 8, 4th Floor Honorable James Ware

HSBC, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants.

FiRMWiDE:860i 1251.1 023404.1053

Case No. CV-08-1769 JW (HF
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 2 of 7

1

Plaintiff, in pro se, and counsel for Defendant HSBC Technology & Services (U.S.A.) Inc. ("HSBC"), wrongfully named as HSBC, Inc. in the complaint, met telephonically on July 25, 2008, and prepared the following joint report. A case management conference has been set in this matter for August 25, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8, on the 4th Floor.. 1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

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
LITTLER MENDELSON 50 West San Fomando Slieol 15lh Flooi San Joso. CA 95113 2303 408999 4150

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this case is being brought under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. The parties are unaware of any service of process, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or venue issues at this time.
2. FACTS

A.

Plaintiffs Allegations

Plaintiffs form Complaint alleges that HSBC terminated and harassed him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff alleges that this unlawful conduct was committed in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination made against his supervisors, for a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC and for his workers' compensation complaints. In addition, Plaintiff claims that his termination was in retaliation for his suffering from a disability-- stress. Plaintiff started working for HSBC on April 10, 2000. During his employment, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to abuse by his supervisors, which he complained about to HSBC's human resources department. Plaintiff claims HSBC terminated his employment on July 11, 2007, in retaliation for the complaints he made against his supervisors. He also claims that he was terminated in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Plaintiff seeks damages, which include lost earnings and other employment benefits, emotional distress, and medical expenses. B. Defendant's Allegations

HSBC terminated Plaintiff on July 11, 2007, after he made a threatening statement to two fellow employees that no one could harm him and, if anyone tried, he would kill them. HSBC conducted an investigation into Plaintiffs statement, concluded that he had made it and determined he posed a threat to the safety of the employees. HSBC denies that Plaintiff was discriminated
FiRMWiDE:860i 1251.1023404.1053 Case No. CV-08-1769 JW (HRL)
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 3 of 7

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
LITTLER MENDELSON 50 Wosl San Fernando Sltcol 15lh Floot Sin Jose. CA 951132303 408 998 4150

against or harassed during his employment. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for his complaints about the alleged discrimination or harassment or for his alleged disability. In fact, Plaintiff never made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to human resources as alleged in Plaintiffs complaint. Likewise, Plaintiff did not file the alleged complaint of discrimination with the EEOC, upon which he is basing his lawsuit, until after his termination so that it could not have been the reason for his termination. 3. DISPUTED FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES

The principle legal and factual disputes in this case are: · Whether Plaintiff suffered unlawful harassment due to his protected activities or membership in a protected category; · Whether Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant in retaliation for making an EEOC complaint or engaging in other protected activities; · Whether Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant in retaliation for suffering from a disability; · · Whether Plaintiff suffered from a disability; Whether Plaintiffs claims are time barred under the applicable statute of limitations; · Whether Plaintiff exhausted the required administrative remedies for each of his claims; · Whether Plaintiffs claims are preempted by the California Workers Compensation Act; · Whether Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant because of threats against other employees; · Whether Plaintiff has suffered any legally compensable damages as a result of any act or omission by Defendant. 4. MOTIONS

There are no current motions before the court. Defendant will file a motion for summary judgment or motion for partial summary judgment. Defendant also may file a motion to
FIRMWIDE:86011251.1 023404.1053 2. Case No. CV 08 1769 JW (HRL)

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 4 of 7

1

prevent Plaintiff from exceeding the discovery limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by conducting discovery in his pending workers' compensation cases to prosecute his Title VII case in this Court. 5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

2 3

4
5

There are no current or expected amendments to the pleadings at this time. The parties will meet and confer in the event either party seeks to add new parties, claims, or defenses. 6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION

6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
50 Wosl San Fernando Sltoct ISlh Floor San Jose. CA 95113 2303 40B99S 4160

The parties have made efforts to preserve both electronic and other evidence, including putting a destruction hold on potentially relevant electronic and other information and documents. 7. DISCLOSURES

The parties agree to exchange initial disclosures on or before August 31, 2008. 8. DISCOVERY

No discovery has taken place to date. The parties have generally agreed to conduct discovery within the limitations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Defendant believes that the parties should be limited to no more than five depositions while Plaintiff wants to take as many depositions as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have also agreed that discovery will be limited to the claim's and defenses raised in the parties' pleadings. Any information stores in an electronic format will be produced in a hard copy or by PDF. The parties have also agreed to revisit the limitations on discovery in the event either party needs to conduct discovery in excess of the limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant believes that Plaintiff may try to exceed the discovery limits imposed by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure by conducting discovery in his workers' compensation proceedings to obtain evidence in support of this matter. Defendant may seek a protective order limiting Plaintiffs discovery in his workers' compensation action only to those issues unique to his workers compensation proceedings. Otherwise all discovery must be limited as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even if the discovery could be used in both matters.

FIRMWIDE:86011251.1 023404.1053

3.

Case No. CV 08 1769 JW (HRL)

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 5 of 7

1
2 3 4 5

9.

CLASS ACTION

This is not a class action. 10. RELATED CASES

Plaintiff currently has pending workers compensation cases before the California Workers Compensation Appeals Board. The first case seeks recovery for workplace injuries caused by alleged harassment in the workplace. The second case is pursuant to California Labor Code section 132a based on alleged retaliation by Defendant for Plaintiffs previous workers' compensation claims. 11. RELIEF

6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26
27

Plaintiffs prayer for relief is contained on page 3 of the Complaint. Plaintiff is seeking such relief as may be appropriate, including injunctive orders, damages, costs and attorney fees. Because no discovery responses have been exchanged in this case, the parties are unable to calculate the claimed damages at this time. Defendant has not filed a counter claim and is therefore not seeking any affirmative relief from the Court in this matter at this time. 12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR The parties have agreed to

The parties have not held settlement discussions. participate in Early Neutral Evaluation as the ADR process. 13.

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

The matter has been assigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge James Ware. Plaintiff and Defendant do not consent to assignment to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 14. OTHER REFERENCES

The parties do not agree to binding arbitration, nor do they believe this matter is suitable for reference to a special master, or the Judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 15. NARROWING OF ISSUES

The parties agree it is too early in the litigation to determine whether issues can be narrowed for trial to expedite the presentation of evidence. The parties agree to work in good faith to determine if any issues may be narrowed as the case progresses.

28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSION*! CORPORATION
50 Wosl Sun Fernando SHOO] ISlh Flooi San Joso CA 95113 2303

FIRMWIDE:86011251.1 023404.1053

4.

Case No. CV 08 1769 JW (HRL)

4 0 S 9 9 8 4150

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4
5

16.

EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

The parties do not believe this matter can be resolved in an expedited schedule. 17. SCHEDULE

The parties propose the following schedule:. · · · · · 18. Discovery completed - May 31, 2009; Designation of experts - May 31, 2009; Expert discovery completed - June 30, 2009; Hearing on dispositive motions - July 27, 2009; Proposed trial date - September 28, 2009. TRIAL The parties anticipate the trial will last

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

Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. approximately five days. 19. PERSONS

DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY

INTERESTED ENTITIES OR

Defendant filed its "Certification of Interested Entities or Persons" pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16 on August 12, 2008. Plaintiff will file his Certificate prior to the Case Management Conference. Dated: August 14, 2008

/s/ Robert J. Wilger ROBERT J. WILGER LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant HSBC, INC. Dated: August 14, 2008

26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON 50 West San Fernando Sircol 15th FIQOI San Joso CA 95113 2303 408 998 4 1 5 0

/s/ Prasad Sharikar PRASAD SHANKAR, In Pro Se

FIRMWIDE:86011251.1 023404.1053

5.

Case No. CV 08 1769 JW (HRL)

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case 5:08-cv-01769-JW

Document 20

Filed 08/14/2008

Page 7 of 7

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
Firmwide:85288514.1 023404.1053

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I am employed in Santa Clara County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor, San Jose, California 95113.2303. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On August 14, 2008, I placed with this firm at the above address for deposit with the United States Postal Service a true and correct copy of the within document(s): JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT in a sealed envelope, postage fully paid, addressed as follows:

Prasad Shankar 2701 East Brookshire, Apt. 201 Sioux Falls, SD 57103 Following ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 14, 2008, at San Jose, California.

26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON A PROFESSION*! CORPORATION 50 Wosl San Fernando SKocI I5lh Floor San Joso CA 95113 2103 408998 4150

PROOF OF SERVICE