OPINION ORDER DENYING THE EEOC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Doc. No. 706]
SEAN COX, District JudgePage 2
On December 23, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed complaints as an intervening plaintiff in both the Seranno and Avalos cases, bringing causes of action against Defendant Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") under Sections 705 and 706 of Title VII to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4, e-5. The Court held a scheduling conference in this matter on August 10, 2009, after which a scheduling order was entered by the Court [ See Doc. No. 646].
Since that time, the EEOC has taken the position that this action should be tried pursuant to the proof framework announced in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). On January 14, 2010, the EEOC filed the instant "Motion for Protective Order" [Doc. No. 706], arguing that "individual discovery is not appropriate at this stage," and seeking a protective order from the Court precluding Cintas from taking the depositions of individual plaintiffs until the second stage of proceedings under the Teamsters framework.
On February 9, 2010, the Court entered its Opinion Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Case No. 04-40132, Doc. No. 723; Case No. 06-12311, Doc. No. 571], in which the Court held that the EEOC was precluded from advancing its claims against Cintas in the instant action under the Teamsters "pattern or practice" framework, but instead must proceed under the burden-shifting framework announced in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 422 U.S. 792 (1973). Therefore, the EEOC's instant "Motion for Protective Order" [Doc. No. 706], which was entirely dependant upon this action proceeding under the Teamsters framework, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.