Canale v. AutoZone, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 30, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-03295·Unknown

Opinion

SCOTT CANALE, Case No. 2:24-cv-03295-CSK Plaintiff, PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS v. AUTOZONE, INC., et al., Defendants. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES, INCLUDING THOSE PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL, MUST COMPLY. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS. On July 29, 2025, the Court conducted a status (initial pretrial scheduling) conference in this matter.1 At the scheduling conference, attorney Catherine Allen appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Scott Canale, and attorney Michael Hoffman appeared on behalf of Defendant Autozone, Inc. After considering the parties’ joint status report (ECF No. 17), and the scheduling conference held, the Court issues the following pretrial 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on the consent of all parties. (ECF Nos. 6-8.) scheduling order. The following summary of the case is based on the parties’ Joint Status Report. (ECF No. 17 at 2). Plaintiff worked as a parts sales manager in an AutoZone retail store. He contends that his physician requested modified duty to accommodate a disability, which included a restriction that he was not to work night shifts. Plaintiff was allegedly forced to work late nights, and he contends that a manager broadcast his work restrictions to others in the store. Plaintiff further alleges that coworkers bullied him, threatened physical harm, and teased him for not being a “real man.” Due to the allegedly intolerable work conditions, Plaintiff resigned from employment. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant failed to compensate him for missed rest periods and meal breaks and failed to reimburse him for work expenses. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations. II. SERVICE OF PROCESS, JOINDER OF PARTIES, PLEADINGS AMENDMENT All named Defendants have been served and have answered the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 17 at 2.) No further service, joinder of parties, or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of Court, and only after good cause is shown. The Court notes thirty (30) Doe Defendants are named in the First Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 13.) The inclusion of such “Doe” defendants is generally disfavored in the Ninth Circuit. Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 928 n.21 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). In addition, in the parties’ Rule 26(f) report, Plaintiff indicates that “[a]ll named defendants were served and have appeared.” (ECF No. 17 at 2.) As discussed at the scheduling conference, Plaintiff may seek to add or substitute AutoZoners, LLC, an entity related to Defendant Autozone, Inc., as a defendant, which Defendant does not oppose. (Id.) The Doe Defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this case, and should Plaintiff wish to amend to add additional named defendants after discovering their identities, Plaintiff may file a motion to amend and submit this motion for the Court’s review. No further service, joinder of parties, or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of Court, and only after good cause is shown. III. JURISDICTION/VENUE The parties assert that the Court has diversity jurisdiction (ECF No. 17 at 2), which is found to be proper. Venue is proper and undisputed. (Id.) IV. DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES A. Initial Disclosures The parties agreed to exchange Rule 26 Initial Disclosures on or before May 9, 2025 by agreement. (ECF No. No. 17 at 3.) At the scheduling conference, the parties confirmed initial disclosures were exchanged. B. Joint Mid-Discovery and Mediation Status Statement By November 7, 2025, all parties shall file with the Court a Joint Mid-Discovery and Mediation Status Statement summarizing the current status of discovery and mediation efforts. This statement shall include discovery completed to date and identification of issues, if any, preventing discovery from proceeding in a timely manner. The filing of this statement shall not relieve the parties or counsel of their obligations to meet and confer, comply with the deadlines set by the Court, and comply with the discovery procedures set by the Court. C. Non-Expert Discovery All non-expert discovery shall be completed by January 30, 2026. “Completed” means (1) all non-expert discovery shall have been conducted, including written discovery and depositions taken, and (2) any disputes related to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. Any discovery-related motions must conform to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules,2

2 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California are available on the district court’s website: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/. including Local Rule 251, and Judge Kim’s Civil Standing Orders.3 Judge Kim hears civil motions on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. D. Expert Discovery The parties shall disclose any expert witnesses in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) no later than February 27, 2026. Any rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) no later than March 27, 2026. Expert disclosures shall be served upon all parties. All expert discovery shall be completed by May 29, 2026. “Completed” means (1) all expert discovery shall have been conducted, including depositions taken, and (2) any disputes related to expert discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate court order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. The same procedures for discovery disputes applies to non-expert and expert discovery. An expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering the expert witness demonstrates that the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). Upon discovery of any such expert witness, the party offering the late disclosed expert witness must promptly notify all parties in writing, promptly make the expert witness available for deposition, and promptly notify the Court in a written filling. This filing must include the case deadlines for expert disclosures, expert discovery cut-off, dispositive motions, final pretrial conference, and trial. Failure to timely provide the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) may lead to preclusion of the expert’s testimony or other appropriate sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). E. Discovery Disputes Prior to filing any discovery-related motions, the parties are required to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve their discovery disputes informally and

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Canale v. AutoZone, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Canale v. AutoZone, Inc. (Canale v. AutoZone, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly Park v. Karen Thompson
851 F.3d 910 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)