Page 1
ROBERTA L. STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA) JAMES H. BAKER JR, SBN 291836 (CA) KENA C. CADOR, SBN 321094 (CA) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0950 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 james.baker@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
THOMAS E. HILL, SBN 100861 (CA) CHRISTINA T. TELLADO, SBN 298597 (CA) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone(213) 896-2400 Fax No. (213) 896-2450 tom.hill@hklaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant TESLA, INC.
(Additional counsel listed on next page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
TESLA, INC.
Defendant.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 2
SARA A. BEGLEY (admitted pro hac vice) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Telephone No. (215) 252-9600 Fax No. (215) 867-6070 SAMUEL J. STONE, SBN 317013 (CA) MARY T. VU, SBN 323088 (CA) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone No. (213) 896-2400 Fax No. (213) 896-2450 PAUL W. MATTHIAS-BENNETCH, SBN 318545 (CA) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone No. (503) 243-2300 Fax No. (503) 241-8014 RAYMOND A. CARDOZO, SBN 173263 (CA) REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, California 94105-3659 Telephone No. (415) 543-8700 Fax No. (415) 391-8269 TYREE P. JONES JR., SBN 127631 (CA) REED SMITH LLP 1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005-3317 Telephone No. (202) 414-9200 Fax No. (202) 414-9299 Attorneys for Defendant TESLA, INC.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 3
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(2), Local Rule 16-9, and the Court’s Order
Re: Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay (ECF 43), Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and Defendant Tesla, Inc. (Tesla), (collectively, the parties), hereby submit the
following Joint Case Management Conference (CMC) Statement.
1.
Jurisdiction and Service On September 28, 2023, the EEOC initiated this lawsuit against Tesla. See ECF 1. As pled,
the Court has original jurisdiction over the EEOC’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,
1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is brought pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (Title VII), and Section
102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
Tesla reserves the right to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
Tesla’s Twelfth (Failure to Meet Pre-Suit Obligations) and Fourteenth (Lack of Jurisdiction)
Affirmative Defenses, and based on Tesla’s position that EEOC failed to comply with its statutory
pre-suit notice and investigative obligations prior to initiating this lawsuit.
The parties agree that Tesla, the only defendant in this action, has been properly served. 2.
Summary of Claims
a.
The EEOC alleges that since May 29, 2015, Tesla has subjected Black employees at its
EEOC’s Position
manufacturing hub in Fremont, California (Fremont Factory) to severe or pervasive racial
harassment and created and maintained a hostile work environment because of their race in a
continuing violation of Title VII. The EEOC alleges that Black employees faced frequent and
offensive, race-based misconduct, including racial slurs such as the N-Word, and other race-based
slurs, insults, taunts, and stereotyping, as well as prevalent displays of racist imagery and graffiti.
The EEOC further alleges that: 1) Tesla’s management and/or human resources employees knew or
should have known of the harassment and/or racially hostile work environment, 2) Tesla failed to
take appropriate actions to prevent or promptly correct the harassment and/or racially hostile work
environment, and 3) Tesla unlawfully retaliated against Black employees who opposed actions they
perceived to constitute unlawful employment discrimination, also in violation of Title VII. These
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 4
unlawful employment practices caused Black employees to suffer damages, including emotional
distress and lost wages.
b.
Tesla denies EEOC’s allegations of race-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation,
Tesla’s Position
and denies having failed to take action to prevent or correct unlawful discrimination, harassment or
retaliation at its Fremont plant. Tesla highly values the diverse workforce that it has attracted to its
Fremont plant, and is proud to provide well-paying, industry-leading jobs to its Fremont workforce.
EEOC’s allegation that race-based harassment and retaliation have been “pervasive” and “ongoing” at the Fremont plant since 2015 is false, and belied by the declarations of hundreds of Black
employees filed in a concurrent state court action in which similarly baseless claims are alleged.
Throughout the entire period covered by EEOC’s Complaint, Tesla’s has maintained anti-harassment
and -discrimination policies that confirm Tesla’s commitment to providing a workplace that is free
from unlawful discrimination and harassment. Tesla has also maintained robust systems and
processes for employees to report what they perceive to be unlawful conduct, and for Tesla to
respond effectively and appropriately to such reports.
3.
Legal Issues
a.
The key disputed legal issues raised by the EEOC’s Complaint are whether:
EEOC’s Position i.
Tesla violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (Title VII).
ii.
Tesla violated Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
iii.
Black employees faced race-based misconduct.
iv.
Black employees found any such race-based misconduct offensive.
v.
The race-based misconduct experienced by Black employees was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of their employment with
Telsa, and did so.
vi.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Tesla’s management or human resources employees knew or should have known of the harassment and/or racially hostile work environment.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 5
vii.
Tesla failed to take appropriate actions to prevent or promptly correct the harassment and/or racially hostile work environment.
viii.
Black employees engaged in protected activity by opposing race-based
misconduct and were subjected to adverse employment actions for engaging
in such protective activity.
ix.
The adversely affected Black employees suffered damages, including
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, humiliation, loss of
enjoyment of life, back pay, and out-of-pocket expenses.
x.
The adversely affected Black employees are entitled to affirmative relief, including but not limited to back pay, reinstatement, front pay, and interest.
xi.
The EEOC is entitled to injunctive relief, including permanent injunctions
enjoining Tesla from engaging in unlawful employment practices that
discriminate based on race.
xii.
The alleged unlawful employment practices were done with malice or in
reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Tesla’s Black
employees warranting an award of punitive damages.
xiii.
To what extent there is factual support for Tesla’s remaining affirmative defenses.
b.
In addition to what EEOC has outlined above in Section 3.a, EEOC’s Complaint and Tesla’s
Tesla’s Position
Answer raise the following key legal issues:
As to every purportedly aggrieved individual on whose behalf EEOC seeks monetary relief for a hostile work environment or retaliation on the basis of race:
i.
Whether the aggrieved individual is a Tesla “employee” under Title VII.
ii.
Whether Tesla took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any
unlawful race discrimination or harassment, and whether the aggrieved
individual failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective
opportunities that Tesla provided.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 6
iii.
Whether the aggrieved individual engaged in a protected activity by opposing
or objecting to unlawful race discrimination or harassment, and whether the
individual suffered an adverse employment decision because of his or her
opposition or objection to unlawful race discrimination or harassment.
iv.
Whether the aggrieved individual experienced at least one instance of
unlawful retaliation or race discrimination or harassment within the 300-day
statutory period before the EEOC filed its Charge in May 2019 (i.e., since
August 2018).
v.
Whether EEOC disclosed (or Telsa reasonably had notice of) and investigated
the factual predicates of the unlawful race discrimination, harassment and/or
retaliation claims it alleges in the Complaint.
vi.
4.
Whether Tesla is entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party.
Motions There are no pending motions. Tesla previously filed motions to dismiss the Complaint and
to stay the lawsuit, both of which the Court denied. See ECF 43. The parties have met and conferred
in an effort to stipulate to a Protective Order, 502(d) Order, and an initial ESI Protocol, and are
continuing these efforts. The parties respectfully ask that the Court set a deadline for the parties to
submit stipulated proposals on the Protective Order, 502(d) Order, and ESI Protocol or seek Court
intervention within 60 days of the Court’s Order on the CMC.
The parties also anticipate eventually filing motions for summary judgment and/or summary
adjudication of certain issues.
5.
Amendment of Pleadings
a.
The EEOC does not currently anticipate adding or dismissing any parties or claims. But
EEOC’s Position
given the complexity of this case, however, the EEOC requests that the deadline to amend pleadings
without a showing of good cause be set for July 9, 2024. The parties are also in the process of
meeting and conferring concerning several of Tesla’s more than 30 alleged affirmative defenses, and
Tesla has thus far said it will voluntarily withdraw its Fourth (Speculative Damages), Sixteenth
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 7
(Failure to Join), and Thirty-Second (Unjust Penalties) affirmative defenses, though it has not yet
amended its answer.
b.
Tesla proposes that the parties’ deadline to amend their pleadings as of right should be 21
Tesla’s Position
days from entry of the Court’s CMC Order. EEOC had three years to fully investigate its claims as
required by Title VII prior to filing the Complaint, and since that filing EEOC has had another seven
months to amend the Complaint if necessary. Tesla does not see any reason why EEOC needs more
than the three-week time frame Rule 15(a) envisions to further consider amending its pleading.
The parties have met and conferred regarding five Affirmative Defenses that EEOC has questioned.
Tesla voluntarily agreed to withdraw three of those Affirmative Defenses (the Fourth, Sixteenth and
Thirty-Second), and declined to withdraw the other two (the Twelfth and Fourteenth). EEOC has not
raised any issues as to any Affirmative Defenses other than the five cited above, and Tesla’s
agreement to withdraw three Affirmative Defenses has no bearing on why EEOC purportedly needs
an additional 60 days to amend its Complaint.
6.
Evidence Preservation The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information (ESI Guidelines) and plan to schedule a conference during the week of May 13
concerning the preservation of ESI that will include their E-Discovery Liaisons. The parties have
identified EEOC Assistant General Counsel (Technology), Maria Salacuse, and Holland & Knight
LLP eDiscovery Senior Project Manager, Arnulfo Flores, as their respective E-Discovery Liaisons
for this case. The parties’ initial ESI Protocol will focus on matters directly applicable to their Initial
Disclosures, including production formatting and metadata.
7.
Disclosures
The parties propose to exchange Initial Disclosures within 75 days after the Court’s order on
the CMC, though, as discussed below, the parties are not in agreement about the scope of the Initial
Disclosures.
///
///
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 8
8.
Discovery
The parties have not yet engaged in formal discovery. The parties are in the process of
negotiating the protective order, as well as a 502(d) Order, and the initial ESI protocol with a goal of
finalizing these documents no later than 60 days from the Court’s CMC order. The parties agree that
a protective order needs to be in place before they can exchange Initial Disclosures or other
discovery.
As for the Discovery Plan, the parties propose to begin formal discovery after their exchange
of Initial Disclosures (due 75 days after the Court’s CMC order), as hereinafter proposed. Because
those Initial Disclosures are anticipated to be voluminous, consisting, in part, of EEOC’s three-year
investigative file and relevant portions of Tesla’s discovery productions in the CRD and Vaughn 1
state court actions time will be needed for the parties to review those Disclosures. After Initial
Disclosures and a review period, the parties will meet and confer and propose a Discovery Plan and
supplemental ESI Protocol to the Court. The parties’ supplemental ESI Protocol will address issues
of ESI sources, relevant custodians, document searches and review, and privilege log exclusions.
The parties do have differing proposals regarding the timing and scope of their Initial Disclosures and the timing of their presentation of a formal Discovery Plan to the Court.
a.
Discovery Plan Proposals i.
EEOC’s Proposal
The EEOC proposes 60 days more than Tesla for reviewing Initial Disclosures and finalizing
a discovery plan. Given the voluminous records involved, Tesla’s proposal of 60 days is too short.
For instance, Tesla has represented that the discovery in Vaughn and CRD alone is over 20,000
records (and 80,000 pages). The EEOC sees the Initial Disclosures period as an opportunity for the
parties to refine their discovery objectives and limit, to the extent possible, duplicating the discovery
completed in Vaughn and CRD. To accomplish this, the EEOC will need time to consume the
produced records, which may require contracting an external vendor, and to modify its discovery
Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla, Inc., Alameda County Superior Court No. 22CV006830, and Vaughn, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court No. RG 17882082.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 9
proposal accordingly before meeting and conferring with Tesla to finalize a discovery plan. The
parties may also need to meet and confer about the Initial Disclosures 2 and to negotiate a
supplemental ESI protocol, including the relevant custodians and sources of ESI revealed in the
Initial Disclosures. Thus, the EEOC proposes that the initial disclosure and review period be as
follows:
•
Initial Disclosures due 75 days following the Court’s Order on the CMC 3;
•
A status conference with the Court 30 days after the Initial Disclosures to monitor the
status of discovery and the parties’ progress towards preparing a proposed discovery
plan;
•
Court 120 days after the Initial Disclosures.
A proposed discovery plan outlining the process for formal discovery due to the
The EEOC also proposes that the parties disclose the following information and records in their Initial Disclosures:
(1)
EEOC’s Disclosures
Non-privileged 4 records (facts) from the investigative file, including:
i.
List of respondents to survey/questionnaire that EEOC issued during its investigation.
ii.
Contact information of individuals interviewed by the EEOC during its
investigation, to the extent this information was maintained in the ordinary
course of business within the EEOC’s investigative files, and excluding
individuals who have asked the EEOC to provide them with legal advice and
assistance or to seek relief for them in connection with this lawsuit. 5
Tesla proposes producing portions of discovery from Vaughn and CRD that it deems to be “relevant” (see infra, at p. 14), but so far has not detailed with any specificity which records it believes are relevant or irrelevant. Consequently, the EEOC has no way to assess the volume or content of information Tesla will produce.
This assumes that a protective order will be in place by this time to cover these documents. Privileged records include those protected by attorney-client, attorney-work product, governmental deliberative process, and conciliation (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b)) privileges. The parties are negotiating a protective order concerning ex parte communications with any of these individuals.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 10
iii.
Copies of responses to any survey/questionnaire that EEOC sent to any current or former Tesla employees during its investigation.
iv.
EEOC Investigator notes of witness interviews.
v.
Policies, personnel files, investigative records, and emails obtained from
Tesla.
vi.
discovery responses, trial and arbitration briefs and exhibits, deposition and
trial and/or arbitration testimony, declarations, affidavits, and statements.
(2)
Tesla’s Disclosures
All discovery produced by Tesla in Vaughn and CRD, including copies of: i.
Written discovery requests and responses propounded or received by Tesla,
including Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, and
Interrogatories.
ii.
Signed declarations, affidavits, and other statements from witnesses in
Vaughn and CRD, excluding formal, signed, and unfiled declarations and
affidavits and related drafts.
iii.
Copies of deposition transcripts from any witnesses deposed in CRD/Vaughn.
iv.
Race harassment and retaliation complaints and related investigation records
concerning Black employees working at Fremont facilities from May 29,
2015, to the present, if any.
v.
List of Black Employees at Fremont facilities employed from January 1, 2015,
to the present, including names, last-known contact information, job title(s),
department(s), dates of employment, supervisor(s), reason for separation, if
any.
The EEOC proposes producing virtually all the evidence it collected during its investigation
of Tesla. The EEOC therefore objects to Tesla’s proposal that the EEOC, in the form of a
“disclosure” create detailed, factual summaries “for every purported aggrieved employee.” See, infra
at p. 11. This request is excessive, unnecessary, and unwarranted particularly at the Initial
Disclosures phase of this case. For instance, hundreds of individuals have already submitted
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 11
declarations in Vaughn alone attesting to their exposure to Tesla’s hostile work environment. See
ECF 22-7 (Exh A to Tesla’s Motion to Stay) p. 50. A compendium of victim accounts would be
premature, excessive, and objectionable even as a contention interrogatory in discovery. See e.g,
Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Co. Inc., 310 F.R.D. 583, 591 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (“Parties are not tasked
with laying out every jot and tittle of their evidentiary case in response to interrogatories.”) (internal
citations omitted); see also, Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14-CV-04741-RS (MEJ), 2016 WL
1039029, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016) (burden of justification on propounding party “who seeks
answers to contention interrogatories before substantial documentary or testimonial discovery has
been completed.”) (internal citations omitted).
Lastly, EEOC objects to Tesla’s refusal to disclose “witness statements” in Vaughn and CRD
to the extent this phrase contemplates anything other than signed and unfiled formal declarations and
affidavits and related drafts. See, infra, at p. 15. While unfiled, formal declarations and affidavits and
related drafts may be attorney work-product, other “witness statements,” which could plausibly
encompass statements obtained during the course of EEO investigations or even informal email
harassment complaints from percipient witnesses to Human Resources, are discoverable.
b.
As noted, the parties agree that an Initial Disclosures period during which formal discovery is
Tesla’s Proposal
stayed would benefit both sides and result in a more efficient discovery process. Tesla proposes the following Initial Disclosures and review timeline:
•
Initial Disclosures due within 75 days of the Court’s CMC Order;
•
A proposed Discovery Plan and stipulated supplemental ESI Protocol due to the
Court 60 days after the Initial Disclosures cut-off date; •
A follow-on case management conference with the Court to address any issues regarding the parties’ proposed Discovery Plan[s]; and
•
Formal discovery stayed until the Court enters a discovery scheduling order and
stipulated supplemental ESI Protocol pursuant to the parties’ proposed
Discovery Plan[s].
Tesla believes EEOC’s proposed 120-day review and conferral period after the parties’
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 12
exchange of Disclosures to be excessive and unnecessary. The parties need not undertake a granular
analysis of the other side’s Initial Disclosures in order to formulate a formal Discovery Plan for the
Court’s consideration. Moreover, EEOC purportedly conducted a three-year investigation of Tesla’s
Fremont plant prior to filing this lawsuit, and so presumably now has much (if not most) of what it
believes it needs to prove its case. Finally, with the assistance of existing e-discovery technology,
60 days is adequate time for the parties to review and meet and confer regarding even a voluminous
number of documents.
Tesla further proposes that the parties share the following information and records in their Initial Disclosures:
(1) i.
EEOC’s Disclosures
Identity and contact information of purportedly aggrieved employees on
whose behalf EEOC currently purports to be seeking individual relief,
although EEOC need not provide contact information for those purportedly
aggrieved employees whom EEOC has agreed to represent in this proceeding;
ii.
its investigation, and any facts gathered during those interviews;
Identity and contact information of all persons EEOC interviewed as part of
iii.
Copies of responses to any survey/questionnaire that EEOC sent to any
current or former Tesla employees during its investigation, including the name
and contact information of the survey respondent;
iv.
corresponding quotes;
Identity of all purportedly quoted speakers in the Complaint and their
v.
To the extent not captured in the above (a)–(d), a summary of factual
particulars of the grievances of each purportedly aggrieved employee that
EEOC has currently identified, including facts sufficient for Tesla to ascertain
for each aggrieved employee, insofar as it is currently known by EEOC: (1)
the location and approximate date of the harassment or retaliation; (2) specific
nature of the harassment or retaliation; (3) position and race or ethnic
background of the alleged harasser or retaliator; (4) witnesses to the
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 13
harassment or retaliation, including any supervisors or managers; (5) whether
the purportedly aggrieved employee made a formal or informal complaint, and
the identity of any HR or ER personnel who were purportedly made aware of
the complaint; (6) how the purportedly aggrieved employee’s complaint (if
any) was handled or resolved by Tesla.
vi.
Identity and contact information of all current and former Tesla employees
whom EEOC contacted regarding its survey/questionnaire or a potential
interview, and who did not respond to the survey or participate in an
interview;
vii.
Policies, personnel files, investigative records, and emails obtained from Tesla;
viii.
Communications between the Parties relating to EEOC’s investigation;
ix.
Discovery responses, trial and arbitration briefs and exhibits, deposition and
trial testimony, declarations, affidavits, and statements.
(2)
i.
Tesla’s Disclosures
Copies of (1) all documents Tesla produced and Tesla’s responses to requests
for production of documents, (2) Tesla’s responses to requests for admission;
(3) Tesla’s responses to interrogatories, (4) deposition transcripts, and (5)
signed employee witness declarations that Tesla has filed in the Vaughn/CRD
cases, to the extent those materials are relevant to EEOC’s allegations of race-
based harassment and retaliation, and assuming the parties agree to a
stipulated protective order that permits the disclosure of information covered
by protective orders in the Vaughn/CRD cases;
ii.
Race harassment and retaliation complaints and related non-privileged
investigation records concerning Black employees working at Fremont
facilities since January 1, 2016, as reasonably up-to-date as practicable in light
of how Tesla maintains the constituent information in the ordinary course of
business;
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 14
iii.
List of current and former employees at the Fremont factory since January 1,
2016, who identify as Black or African American, including their names, last-
known contact information, job title(s), and dates of employment, as
reasonably up-to-date as practicable in light of how Tesla maintains the
constituent information in the ordinary course of business; and
iv.
Communications between the Parties relating to EEOC’s investigation.
Tesla opposes EEOC’s requests that Tesla produce signed witness statements in the
Vaughn/CRD cases that Tesla has not included in litigation filings or otherwise publicly disclosed.
Undisclosed signed witness statements that a party gathers in the course of litigation fall squarely
within the protections of the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Convergent Techs. Second Half
1984 Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 555, 558 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (relying on Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495
(1947)).
As to EEOC’s claim that Tesla unreasonably requests “detailed, factual summaries” for
“every aggrieved employee,” EEOC either misreads or mischaracterizes Tesla’s proposal. What
Tesla requests is basic factual information (who?, what?, when?, where?, why?) relating to
individual claims of harassment and/or retaliation by “aggrieved employees” upon whose behalf
EEOC seeks relief in this action. To the extent this information is included in documents that EEOC
agrees to produce, no additional summary is requested. But to the extent this factual information is
contained in a document that EEOC considers privileged and withholds from disclosure, Tesla seeks
a summary of the non-privileged, factual information previously discussed and specified in Section
8a.iv.(1)(e). Moreover, this is not—as EEOC frames it—a premature “contention interrogatory.”
Tesla only seeks relevant facts that EEOC gathered during its administrative investigation, not “all
facts” that support EEOC’s claims in this lawsuit.
9.
Class Actions This case is not a class action and the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements is
inapplicable.
///
///
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 15
10.
Related Cases
a.
The EEOC does not believe that any cases meet the standard for a related case under Local
EEOC’s Position
Rule 3-12(a), which requires the related case to contain “substantially the same parties, property,
transaction, or event.” The parties and the Court are, of course, aware of the Vaughn and CRD cases
and the EEOC will endeavor to avoid duplicating discovery in those cases to the extent it can.
b.
Under Local Rule 3-12(a)’s definition, the following are related cases to this action: (1)
Tesla’s Position
Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla, Inc., Alameda County Superior Court No.
22CV006830; and (2) Vaughn, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court No. RG
17882082.
11.
Relief
a.
The EEOC detailed the relief it seeks in its Complaint. See ECF 1, pg. 8-9. The relief
EEOC’s Position
includes permanent injunctions against further discrimination, an order for Tesla to institute and
implement policies, practices, and programs as may be necessary to afford equal employment
opportunities for Black employees and to eradicate any prior discrimination. Id. The EEOC also
seeks monetary damages, including for back pay and pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, such as
emotional distress for aggrieved individuals and punitive damages. Id. While the exact computation
of monetary damages is currently uncertain, Title VII claims are subject to a $300,000 statutory cap
on compensatory and punitive damages per aggrieved individual. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b).
b.
Tesla believes that EEOC is not entitled to any relief and reserves the right to seek costs and
Tesla’s Position
fees from the EEOC, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Given the vague nature of EEOC’s allegations,
and the failure to identify any particularized facts regarding any identified employees, Tesla cannot
provide a description of the bases for any potential damages calculations at this time.
12.
Settlement and ADR The parties previously engaged in confidential, conciliation negotiations prior to the filing of
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 16
this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).
The parties believe that additional discovery and/or motions practice is needed before
conducting additional ADR or proposing an ADR plan in accordance with ADR L.R. 3-5. Therefore,
the parties request that the Court set November 9, 2024, as the deadline for the parties to revisit
selection of an ADR process and, if appropriate, to propose an appropriate deadline for completion
of ADR.
13.
This case is not suitable for referral to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
14.
Stipulated Narrowing of Any Issues Please see the parties’ proposals regarding the Discovery Plan, at Section 8(a), supra.
15.
Other References
Scheduling Please see the parties’ proposals regarding the Discovery Plan, at Section 8(a), supra.
16.
Trial The parties believe that it is currently premature to determine the length of a trial on any of
the issues in this case. The parties anticipate that they will be able to further inform the Court about
the timing of a trial when they present their Discovery Plan[s]. See supra, Section 8.
17.
Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons The EEOC is not subject to the disclosure requirements of L.R. 3-15(a). Tesla filed its
disclosure statement on December 26, 2023 (ECF 25) and will file any updated disclosures by May
2, 2024.
18.
Professional Conduct
a.
The EEOC confirms that its attorneys of record have reviewed the Guidelines for
EEOC
Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.
b.
Tesla confirms that its attorneys of record have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional
Tesla
Conduct for the Northern District of California.
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 17
19.
Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this matter
a.
The parties are negotiating whether certain categories of documents need not be included on
Privilege
a privilege log.
b.
The parties stipulate to electronic service, with documents being deemed timely served if
Electronic Service
they are emailed to the parties’ attorneys of record and to their respective email lists (below) on or
before the date that the documents would otherwise be due to be served.
i.
EEOC’s Current Email List:
(a)
James.baker@eeoc.gov
(b)
Kena.cador@eeoc.gov
(c)
Roberta.steele@eeoc.gov
(d)
Marcia.mitchell@eeoc.gov
(e)
SFDO_tesla@eeoc.gov
ii.
Tesla Email List:
(a)
Tom.hill@hklaw.com
(b)
Sara.begley@hklaw.com
(c)
Christina.tellado@hklaw.com
(d)
Rcardozo@reedsmith.com
(e)
Paul.bennetch@hklaw.com
(f)
Billy.sahachartsiri@hklaw.com
(g)
Deborah.rzepela-auch@hklaw.com
///
///
///
///
///
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 18
Dated: May 2, 2024 ROBERTA STEELE Regional Attorney
KARLA GILBRIDE
General Counsel
MARCIA L. MITCHELL
Assistant Regional Trial Attorney
CHRISTOPHER LAGE
Deputy General Counsel
JAMES H. BAKER
Senior Trial Attorney
Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20507
KENA C. CADOR
Trial Attorney
BY:
/s/ James H. Baker James H. Baker U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone (650) 684-0950 james.baker@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
BY:
/s/ Thomas E. Hill Thomas E. Hill thomas.hill@hklaw.com Christina T. Tellado christina.tellado@hklaw.com HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 896-2400 Facsimile: (213) 896-2450 Attorneys for Defendant Tesla Inc.
LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) ATTESTATION I, James H. Baker, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file the Joint Case Management Conference Statement. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Thomas E. Hill concurs in this filing. Dated: May 2, 2024
JT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
/s/ James H. Baker James H. Baker, Senior Trial Attorney
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Back to 
