1 || Craig M. Murphy, Esq. California Bar No. 314526 2 || craig @nvpilaw.com

MURPHY & MURPHY LAW OFFICES

3 || 4482 Market Street, Ste 407 Ventura, CA 93003 4 || (805) 330-3393 Phone (702) 369-9630 Fax Attorney for Plaintiff 6 |} ANNTONETTE SARTORI 7 || Robert L. Sallander, Esq., (SBN 118352) rsallander@ gpsllp.com 8 || Helen H. Chen, Esq., (SBN 213150) hchen @ gpsllp.com 9 || GREENAN, PEFFER, SALLANDER & LALLY LLP 2000 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 380 10 || San Ramon, California 94583 Telephone: (925) 866-1000 11 || Facsimile: (925) 830-8787 12 || Attorneys for Defendant

THOMSON INTERNATIONAL, INC.

13 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 17 || ANNTONETTE SARTORI, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-JLT-BAK (SKO) 18 Plaintiff(s),

STIPULATED MOTION TO

19 V. CONSOLIDATE DISCOVERY OF

DEFENDANT THOMSON

20 ||THOMSON INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., | INTERNATIONAL, INC. & ORDER 21 Defendant(s). Temporary Magistrate Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto 22 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2022 23 Trial Date: October 31, 2023 24 25 The parties, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3), 26 || hereby move to consolidate the discovery of defendant Thomson International, Inc. (“Thomson” 27 || in the following six actions filed in this Court: 28 STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE DISCOVERY Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-JLT-BAK (SKO)

1 1) Sartori v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-JLT-BAK (SKO) 2 2) Garofalo vy. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00037-JLT-BAK (SKO) 3 3) Paquette v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00034-JLT-BAK (SKO) 4 4) Jackson v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00038-JLT-BAK (SKO) 5 5) Austin v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK 6 6) Sams v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK 7 The parties request consolidation because the above six cases involve common issues o 8 || fact and law. Consolidation would promote judicial convenience and economy given the numbe 9 || of potential witnesses that otherwise would be required to give the same testimony in multipl 10 || proceedings. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 12 I. Factual Background 13 As shown above, there are six separate lawsuits that have been filed by plaintiffs who alleg 14 || they developed Salmonella Newport infections in the summer of 2020 after allegedly consumin 15 || onions grown by defendant Thomson. All plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Murph 16 || and Murphy and Marler Clark. The sole defendant in all six cases is Thompson International Inc., 17 || which is represented by the law firm of Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally LLP. 18 The Court has issued scheduling orders in the first four cases listed above. The first fou 19 || cases have been assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Judge Sheila K. Oberto is the Temporar 20 || Magistrate Judge in all four cases. These four cases have the same discovery deadlines, bu 21 || different trial dates. Non-expert deadlines for the four cases are December 12, 2022. 22 Austin v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK is currentl 23 || assigned to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Mandatory Scheduling Conference is set for August 16, 2022] 24 Sams v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK is currentl 25 || assigned to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Mandatory Scheduling Conference is set for July 7, 2022. 26 || /// 27 || /// 28

ee II NRE OE I IIE EI RIDE IEE II IIE OIE II III ES

1 II. Legal Argument 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) provides: 3 (a) CONSOLIDATION. If actions before the court involve a common question of law 4 or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the 5 actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid 6 unnecessary cost or delay. 7 a. Consolidation Promotes Judicial Efficiency 8 To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the interest of judicial convenience 9 || against the potential for delay, confusion, and prejudice caused by consolidation. April in Paris v. 10 || Becerra, 494 F. Supp. 3d 756, 771-72 (E.D. Cal. 2020). The purpose of consolidation is to avoid 11 || unnecessary cost and delay. Jd. A district court may even consolidate actions sua sponte as part of 12 || its broad discretion to manage its caseload if such cases “involve a common question of law or 13 || fact.” In re Adams Apple, 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). “Typically, consolidation is 14 || favored.” In re Oreck Corp. Halo Vacuum & Air Purifiers Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 282 15 || F.R.D. 486, 490 (C.D. Cal. 2012). 16 Because all six cases arise from the allegations against defendant Thomson for alleged] 17 || causing the 2020 Salmonella Newport outbreak, consolidating the discovery of Thomson allow 18 || the cases to be handled in the most efficient way and avoid inconsistent results. 19 || Consolidation serves the interests of judicial economy by promoting efficiency and saving time 20 || for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion practice. Id. 21 1. The cases involve common issues of law and fact. 22 All six lawsuits assert the same factual allegations against defendant Thomson and pursu 23 || the same legal theories. Plaintiffs advance causes of action based on strict liability, negligence, 24 || negligence per se, and breach of warranty. The cases involve substantial overlapping discover 25 || against Thomson. The common factual and legal issues involved in these cases justif 26 || coordination. 27 || /// 28

ee II IRE NE I IEEE IE IEE IEE OIE II III

1 2. Consolidation would promote the just and efficient conduct of litigation. 2 Pre-trial coordination of discovery of defendant Thomson in six cases would preven 3 || duplicative discovery, thereby promoting the just and efficient conduct of litigation. Th 4 || complexity and similarities of the cases warrant coordination. 5 Substantial discovery against defendant Thomson will be pursued through writte 6 || discovery, corporate representative depositions, third-party witness depositions, record 7 || production and expert witness testimony. It is expected that a number of expert witnesses across 8 || multiple disciplines will be retained to address the various scientific and medical issues. 9 Coordination will minimize the potential for inconsistent rulings on the common legal an 10 || evidentiary issues involved in these cases, prevent disparate treatment of defendant and avoi 11 |} litigation difficulties of managing these cases before different judges. Placing all actions before 12 || single judge, who can formulate and monitor a pretrial discovery program, will advance judicia 13 || economy, reduce the overall litigation management burdens and conserve the resources of the 14 || parties, their counsel and the judiciary. All of the factors discussed above weigh in favor o 15 || consolidation as it serves to “avoid unnecessary costs or delay” of the litigation as contemplate 16 || by Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 17 I. Conclusion 18 For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that discovery of Thomson in al 19 || six cases be consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3): 20 (1) That the discovery of Thomson conducted and completed in one of the above six 21 cases may be used as if provided in all six cases; provided, however, that plaintiffs in 22 the six cases shall be limited to a total of 25 interrogatories; 23 (2) That each plaintiff shall have the right to use the deposition testimony of any 24 Thomson witness as if provided in all six cases; provided, however, that plaintiffs in 25 the six cases shall be limited to a total of 10 depositions and shall not be entitled to 26 increase the number of hours for each deposition beyond the statutory cap of 1 day of 27 7 hours; 28

1 (3) That the non-expert discovery deadlines for discovery of Thomson in Austin □□□ 2 Thomson International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK and Sams v. 3 Thomson International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK, be set as the sam 4 date as the other four cases: December 12, 2022; 5 (4) That the non-expert discovery deadlines for discovery of plaintiffs in Austin v. Thomso 6 International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK and Sams vy. Thomso 7 International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK, which are yet to be set, shal 8 not conform to the discovery deadlines of the other four cases; and 9 (5) That this stipulation does not apply to Thomson’s discovery of plaintiffs in the si 10 cases. 1] The parties further request that Austin v. Thomson International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv- 12 || 00388-AWI-BAK and Sams v. Thomson International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BA 13 || be re-assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, and that Judge Sheila K. Oberto be the Temporary 14 || Magistrate Judge for Sams and Austin. 15 || Dated: June 6, 2022 16 MURPHY & MURPHY LAW OFFICES

17 /s/ Craig Murph 18 Craig Murphy, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 ANNTONETTE SARTORI 20 Dated: June 3, 2022 GREENAN. PEFFER, SALLANDER & LALLY 21 LLP 22 23 By: __/s/ Robert L. Sallander Robert L. Sallander, Esq. 25 Helen H. Chen, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant 6 THOMSON INTERNATIONAL, INC. 27 28

OMNIMMILIT ATTUTY ACAI TST ARTOLAT TMA THO {1 fi... aT. 6129 2 MNNNAYOSD OTT oT ON AY SOY SNS

1 ORDER RE: CONSOLIDATION OF DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT THOMSON 5 INTERNATIONAL, INC. IN SIX CASES

3 The Court has reviewed the parties’ above stipulation motion to consolidate discovery] 4 || (Doc. 13.) Six cases have been filed against Defendant Thomson International, Inc. (“Thomson” 5 || in this Court: 6 1. Sartori v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-JLT-BAK (SKO) 7 2. Garofalo v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00037-JLT-BAK (SKO 8 3. Paquette v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00034-JLT-BAK (SKO) 9 4. Jackson vy. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00038-JLT-BAK (SKO 10 5, Austin v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK 11 6. Sams v. Thomson International Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK 12 Because all six cases arise from allegations against Defendant Thomson for alleged] 13 || causing the 2020 Salmonella Newport outbreak, consolidating the discovery of Thomson allow 14 || the cases to be handled in the most efficient way and avoid inconsistent results. Consolidation 15 || serves the interests of judicial economy by promoting efficiency and saving time for purposes of 16 || pretrial discovery and motion practice. 17 Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The discovery of Thomson in all six cases is consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ, 19 P. 42(a)(3); 20 2. The discovery of Thomson conducted and completed in one of the above six cases 21 may be used as if provided in all six cases; provided, however, that plaintiffs in th 22 six cases shall be limited to a total of 25 interrogatories; 23 3. Each plaintiff shall have the right to use the deposition testimony of any Thomso 9A witness as if provided in all six cases; provided, however, that plaintiffs in the si 25 cases shall be limited to a total of 10 depositions and shall not be entitled to increas 26 the number of hours for each deposition beyond the statutory cap of 1 day of 7 27 hours; 28

1 4, The non-expert discovery deadlines for discovery of Thomson in Austin v. Thomso 2 International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK, and Sams v. Thomso 3 International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK, will be set for Decembe 4 12, 2022, the same date as the other four cases; 5 5. The non-expert discovery deadlines for discovery of plaintiffs in Austin v. Thomso 6 International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK, and Sams v. Thomso 7 International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK, which have yet to be set 8 shall not conform to the discovery deadlines of the other four cases; and 9 6. This Order does not apply to Thomson’s discovery of plaintiffs in the six cases. 10 As for the parties’ requests for reassignment in related cases Austin v. Thomso 11 || International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00388-AWI-BAK, and Sams v. Thomson International, Inc., 12 || Case No. 1:22-cv-00387-DAD-BAK, the parties are ORDERED to file a Notice of Related Cases 13 || as a separate document in each related action pursuant to Local Rule 123(b) by no later than Jun 14 || 10, 2022. The hearing on the stipulated motion, currently set for July 11, 2022, is hereb 15 || VACATED. 16 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file this order in each of the six above-reference 17 || cases. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _Jume 6, 2022 Is! Sheila kK. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28