Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:533 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) jkessler@winston.com David G. Feher (pro hac vice) dfeher@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Telephone: (212) 294- 6700 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 Cardelle B. Spangler (pro hac vice) cspangler@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) dhleiden@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 Ellen E. McLaughlin (pro hac vice) emclaughlin@seyfarth.com Cheryl A. Luce (pro hac vice) cluce@seyfarth.com SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 17 Jeanifer E. Parsigian (SBN: 289001) jparsigian@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California St., 35th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Kristin M. Peters (SBN 252296) kpeters@seyfarth.com SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 277-5219 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION ALEX MORGAN, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Plaintiffs/Claimants, vs. Assigned to: Judge R. Gary Klausner JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION, INC., Defendant/Respondent. Complaint filed: March 8, 2019 Scheduling Conference: Aug. 19, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 850 28 1 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:534 1 Plaintiffs and the United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (“U.S. Soccer,” with 2 Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) hereby submit the following Joint Rule 26(f) Report. The 3 Parties held their Rule 26(f) conference on July 26, 2019. 4 I. Summary of the Case 5 A. 6 U.S. Soccer is the single, common employer of female and male professional 7 soccer players who play on the United States Senior Women’s National Soccer Team 8 (“USWNT”) and the United States Senior Men’s National Soccer Team (“USMNT”). 9 Despite the fact that these female and male players are called upon to perform the same 10 job responsibilities on their teams and participate in international competitions for their 11 common employer, the female players have been consistently paid less money than their 12 male counterparts and have been otherwise denied equal treatment. This is true even 13 though their performance has been superior to that of the male players—with the female 14 players, in contrast to male players, becoming world champions four times over. Plaintiffs’ Statement 15 This collective and class action is brought by current female employees of U.S. 16 Soccer who play on the USWNT for violations of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) 17 et seq. (EPA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 18 2000e et seq., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former 19 USWNT players who U.S. Soccer has subjected to its continuing policies and practices 20 of gender discrimination. U.S. Soccer discriminates against Plaintiffs, and the class that 21 they seek to represent, by paying them less than members of the USMNT for 22 substantially equal work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel 23 conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their 24 games; and other terms and conditions of employment equal to the USMNT. 25 B. 26 Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the EPA and Title VII are without any basis in 27 law or fact. Plaintiffs’ claims fail because the USWNT and USMNT do not play soccer 28 in the “same establishment” under the EPA or Title VII and play soccer at different U.S. Soccer’s Statement 2 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:535 1 times, in different locations, against different opponents, and are comprised of athletes 2 who have different obligations, are compensated in fundamentally different ways, and 3 enjoy different benefits. The USWNT and USMNT organized into separate players’ 4 associations and negotiated separate collective bargaining agreements governing their 5 compensation and terms and conditions of employment. Under those agreements, the 6 USMNT players are paid in the form of high-risk, high-reward match appearance fees, 7 while the USWNT negotiated low-risk guaranteed salaries and benefits. Even if the 8 USWNT and USMNT players were comparable under the EPA and Title VII as a matter 9 of law (which they are not), any pay differential is attributable to factors other than sex, 10 including their different bargaining priorities and preferences and different revenue 11 generation. Additionally, many USWNT players earn more than USMNT players and 12 have no claim for relief under the EPA or Title VII. Regarding Plaintiffs’ other claims 13 arising under Title VII, USWNT players are not subject to different terms and 14 conditions of employment, and any differential treatment is not sex discrimination 15 actionable under Title VII. 16 II. Dispositive Motion Practice 17 A. 18 Plaintiffs reserve the right to file a motion for summary judgment or other 19 Plaintiffs’ Statement dispositive motion following the close of discovery. 20 B. 21 Defendant reserves the right to file a motion for summary judgment or other 22 U.S. Soccer’s Statement dispositive motion following the close of discovery. 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:536 1 III. Discovery Plan and Case Schedule 2 A. 3 Plaintiffs propose the following discovery and case schedule (subject to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Case Schedule amendment in the future if needed): Discovery Plan & Case Schedule Item Deadline Exchange initial disclosures August 19, 2019 Fact discovery cut-off February 28, 2020 Expert reports due March 30, 2020 Expert oppositions due April 29, 2020 Expert replies due May 29, 2020 Expert discovery cut-off June 12, 2020 Dispositive motion filing cut-off date July , 2020 Final pre-trial conference October 21, 2020 Trial November 11, 2020 U.S. Soccer proposes the following discovery and case schedule (subject to amendment in the future if needed): Discovery Plan & Case Schedule Item Deadline Exchange initial disclosures August 19, 2019 Fact discovery cut-off March 27, 2020 Expert reports due April 30, 2020 Expert oppositions due May 29, 2020 Expert replies due June 30, 2020 Expert discovery cut-off July17, 2020 Dispositive motion filing cut-off date August 11, 2020 Final pre-trial conference November 20, 2020 Trial December 8, 2020 22 B. 23 The Parties have discussed the preservation of discoverable information and do 24 not anticipate any issues or difficulties regarding the preservation and/or production of 25 discoverable information, including electronically stored information (“ESI”). The 26 Parties anticipate entering into an ESI Protocol. To the extent any such issues arise 27 relating to preservation, discovery, or ESI, the Parties will meet and confer to resolve Preservation of Discoverable Information 28 4 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:537 1 those issues. 2 C. 3 The Parties have agreed in principle to enter into a stipulated protective order to 4 protect any confidential, proprietary, or other potentially sensitive information that may 5 be appropriate to produce in discovery. It is Plaintiffs’ position that a single-tier 6 protective order, without an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provision, is appropriate in this 7 case. It is U.S. Soccer’s position that a double-tier protective order, with an “Attorneys’ 8 Eyes Only” provision is appropriate in this case. 9 10 Protective Order and Privilege Issues The Parties do not anticipate any unusual privilege or protection issues, but if any issues arise, the Parties have agreed to meet and confer to resolve those issues. 11 D. Subjects for Discovery 12 Plaintiffs expect to propound discovery, including requests for production, 13 deposition notices, interrogatories, and requests for admission, on at least the following 14 subjects: U.S. Soccer’s discriminatory practices; U.S. Soccer’s marketing, 15 sponsorships, financials, compensation to members of the USWNT in comparison to 16 compensation to members of the USMNT; the economic value of the USWNT 17 broadcasting rights in comparison to the economic value of the USMNT broadcasting 18 rights; U.S. Soccer’s employment practices; U.S. Soccer’s agreements with sponsors, 19 media partners, and licensors; U.S. Soccer’s collective bargaining negotiations relating 20 to the USWNT and USMNT; and responsibilities of USWNT and USMNT players. 21 Defendant expects to propound discovery, including requests for production, 22 deposition notices, interrogatories, and requests for admission, on at least the following 23 subjects: communications related to the parties’ negotiation of the USWNT collective 24 bargaining agreements; Plaintiffs’ communications related to their claims and this 25 lawsuit; Plaintiffs’ performance of work for Defendant and the terms and conditions of 26 that work; compensation earned by Plaintiffs; and discovery related to Defendant’s 27 affirmative defenses. 28 5 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:538 1 E. 2 The Parties have agreed to exchange initial disclosures on August 19, 2019. 3 F. 4 The Parties do not expect that it will be necessary to conduct discovery in phases. 5 G. 6 The Parties do not believe that there is any need to deviate from the limitations 7 on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of 8 this Court. 9 Initial Disclosures Phases of Discovery Limitations on Discovery H. Other Orders 10 The Parties have agreed to serve discovery requests and responses by email. For 11 Plaintiffs, discovery requests and responses should be served by email on the following 12 email 13 dfeher@winston.com; 14 ltsukerman@winston.com; DocketLA@winston.com. 15 requests and responses should be served by email on the following email addresses: 16 emclaughlin@seyfarth.com; 17 Discovery requests and responses must be served no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific in order 18 to be considered served on that day. The Parties shall not serve discovery requests on 19 weekends or holidays. 20 IV. addresses: jkessler@winston.com; dhleiden@winston.com; cluce@seyfarth.com; cspangler@winston.com; jparsigian@winston.com; For Defendant, discovery kmpeters@seyfarth.com. ADR Selection 21 The Parties preferred ADR procedure under Local Rule 16-15.4 is to participate 22 in a private dispute resolution proceeding. The Parties have agreed to and scheduled a 23 private mediation of this matter, which will occur before the August 19, 2019 24 scheduling conference in this matter. 25 V. 26 27 Trial A preliminary estimate of the time required for trial is two to four weeks. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. 28 6 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR Case 2:19-cv-01717-RGK-AGR Document 57 Filed 08/09/19 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:539 1 VI. 2 3 Additional Parties Plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class and collective action. VII. Complex Litigation 4 The Parties agree that this matter should not be governed by the procedures of 5 the federal Manual for Complex Litigation. 6 Dated: August 9, 2019 7 By: /s/ Diana Hughes Leiden 1 Jeffrey L. Kessler David G. Feher Cardelle B. Spangler Diana Hughes Leiden Jeanifer E. Parsigian 8 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Dated: August 9, 2019 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 14 By: /s/ Ellen E. McLaughlin Ellen E. McLaughlin Cheryl A. Luce Kristen M. Peters 15 Attorneys for Defendant 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Diana Hughes Leiden, attest that all other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing. 1 7 JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01717-RGK-AGR