1012-00004 · Stonefield Logistics Group · Pleadings & Court Filings

proposed-scheduling-order.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

35 / 35 ← ✕

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("Stonefield," "SLG," or "Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully submits this Proposed Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Court's direction at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on June 18, 2025, before the Honorable Timothy Farrell, United States Magistrate Judge. This Proposed Scheduling Order is submitted in advance of the Scheduling Conference so that the Court may have the benefit of Defendant's position on the appropriate timing and phasing of proceedings in this matter.

Defendant submits this proposal through its counsel of record, Bernard Crawford, Responsible Partner, and Renata Vasquez, Billing Partner, of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600, Dallas, Texas 75201. Prior to the preparation of this filing, Defendant's counsel conferred in good faith with Plaintiff's lead counsel, Claudia Hartwell of Hartwell & Brashear PLLC, regarding the proposed deadlines and structure set forth herein, as required by the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas. The parties have reached agreement on the majority of the deadlines and procedural framework proposed below, including the amendment deadline, expert disclosure sequence, and trial setting. However, the parties disagree on certain matters, most notably (i) whether merits discovery should be stayed or limited pending the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, and (ii) the appropriate length of any opt-in period following conditional certification. Where the parties' positions diverge, Defendant has noted the disagreement and explained its position for the Court's consideration.

SECTION 1: NATURE OF THE ACTION

This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and is brought by Named Plaintiff Marcus Delano as a collective action on behalf of himself and all others allegedly similarly situated. Plaintiff also asserts supplemental state-law claims under the Texas Payday Law, Texas Labor Code §§ 61.001 et seq., and related provisions of the Texas Labor Code.

Named Plaintiff Marcus Delano is a former delivery driver who performed services for Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. under an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement ("ICOA"). Plaintiff alleges that Stonefield misclassified Mr. Delano and approximately 1,200 similarly situated delivery drivers across Stonefield's network of distribution hubs as independent contractors rather than employees. Plaintiff contends that this alleged misclassification resulted in the denial of overtime compensation to which the drivers were purportedly entitled under the FLSA and applicable Texas wage-and-hour laws.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an equal amount pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations in their entirety. Stonefield maintains that its delivery drivers, including Mr. Delano, are and have been bona fide independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test, as consistently applied by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant contends that the drivers at issue exercised meaningful entrepreneurial control over their work, including the ability to negotiate compensation rates, hire helpers and substitute drivers, service multiple clients, set their own schedules within broad parameters, and operate their own vehicles and equipment. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff's claims fail on an individual basis and are wholly unsuitable for collective treatment under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

The Court should be aware that there is presently pending before the Court Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification (filed July 14, 2025), which seeks conditional certification of a collective of "all current and former delivery drivers who performed services for Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. at any of its distribution hubs nationwide during the period from July 14, 2022 to the present." The resolution of this motion will have a significant impact on the scope, phasing, and cost of discovery in this matter, and Defendant respectfully submits that the scheduling order should be structured to account for the contingencies that may arise depending on the Court's ruling.

SECTION 2: PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The parties to this action and their respective counsel of record are as follows:

Plaintiff:

Marcus Delano 3417 Calmont Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76107

Represented by:

Hartwell & Brashear PLLC 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-8700 Facsimile: (214) 555-8701

Claudia Hartwell, Lead Counsel

Email: chartwell@hartwellbrashear.com

Jordan Brashear

Email: jbrashear@hartwellbrashear.com

Defendant:

Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800 Irving, Texas 75039

Represented by:

Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-4200 Facsimile: (214) 555-4201

Bernard Crawford, Responsible Partner

Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com

Renata Vasquez, Billing Partner

Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com

James Underwood, Lead Associate

Email: junderwood@calderwoodharkness.com

Devon Archer, Associate

Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com

SECTION 3: PROPOSED PHASED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

Defendant respectfully proposes that discovery in this matter be conducted in two distinct phases, structured around the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. Phased discovery is warranted in FLSA collective actions to ensure that the scope and burden of discovery are proportional to the claims and defenses actually at issue, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), and to prevent the parties and the Court from expending unnecessary resources on merits discovery that may prove largely or entirely moot depending on the outcome of the conditional certification determination.

3.1 Phase 1 — Conditional Certification discovery and Briefing

Defendant proposes that Phase 1 of discovery be strictly limited to issues relevant to the pending Motion for Conditional Certification and that merits discovery be bifurcated from conditional certification discovery. This approach is consistent with the practice widely adopted by courts in the Northern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit in managing FLSA collective actions. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xeroxx Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987) (establishing the two-stage certification framework); Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995).

Conditional Certification Briefing Schedule:

The following briefing schedule governs Plaintiff's pending Motion for Conditional Certification:

• Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification: Filed July 14, 2025

• Defendant's Response in Opposition: Due August 13, 2025 (30 days after filing of motion)

• Plaintiff's Reply in Support: Due August 27, 2025 (14 days after response)

• Oral Argument: At the Court's convenience following completion of briefing, if requested by either party or deemed appropriate by the Court

Phase 1 discovery:

During Phase 1, discovery shall be limited to issues bearing on conditional certification — specifically, whether the putative collective members are "similarly situated" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) such that conditional certification is appropriate. Phase 1 discovery may include, without limitation, discovery concerning the job duties and working conditions of the Named Plaintiff and putative collective members, the terms of the ICOAs executed by various drivers, and the degree of uniformity (or lack thereof) in Stonefield's policies and practices across its distribution hubs. Phase 1 discovery shall be completed by the close of the conditional certification briefing period, i.e., no later than August 27, 2025.

Defendant's Position on Stay of Merits discovery:

Defendant's position is that merits discovery should be stayed or substantially limited pending the Court's resolution of the Motion for Conditional Certification. Allowing full-scale merits discovery to proceed before the Court determines whether a collective should be conditionally certified — and if so, the scope of that collective — would impose undue burden and expense on Defendant. If conditional certification is denied, or if the collective is substantially narrowed from the approximately 1,200 drivers Plaintiff identifies, then much of any merits discovery conducted in the interim will have been unnecessary and wasteful. This concern is heightened by the geographic breadth of Plaintiff's proposed collective, which spans all fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs across multiple states.

Defendant notes that Plaintiff's counsel has indicated disagreement with a stay of merits discovery. Plaintiff's position, as communicated during the parties' Rule 26(f) conference, is that merits discovery should proceed concurrently with conditional certification briefing to avoid unnecessary delay. Defendant respectfully submits that the efficiency gains from phasing outweigh any marginal delay, particularly given the magnitude of discovery that would be required across Stonefield's operations.

Defendant's Reservation Regarding Motion to Compel Arbitration:

Defendant further notes that it may file a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration with respect to approximately 640 delivery drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 (the January 2023 revision of Stonefield's Independent Contractor Operating Agreement). ICOA v3.0 contains a mandatory arbitration clause and a class and collective action waiver that Defendant contends is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and controlling Fifth Circuit precedent. Defendant reserves the right to file such a motion at the appropriate time, which may be before or after the Court's ruling on conditional certification. The resolution of any such motion may further impact the scope of the collective and, correspondingly, the scope and burden of merits discovery. Defendant respectfully requests that the scheduling order preserve its right to seek appropriate relief regarding the arbitration agreements without prejudice.

3.2 Phase 2 — Merits discovery

Opt-In Period:

If the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in whole or in part, Defendant proposes that the Court order a sixty (60)-day opt-in period, commencing from the date of the Court's order granting conditional certification, during which putative collective members may submit their consent-to-join forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendant submits that a 60-day opt-in period is reasonable and consistent with the practice of courts in this District. Defendant understands that Plaintiff may seek a 90-day opt-in period; Defendant respectfully opposes any period exceeding 60 days as unnecessary in light of the notice mechanisms available through modern electronic and postal communications.

Merits discovery Commencement:

Phase 2 merits discovery shall commence upon the later of: (a) the Court's ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification and expiration of the opt-in period (if conditional certification is granted), or (b) the date of the Court's order denying conditional certification (in which case merits discovery shall commence immediately and proceed as to the Named Plaintiff's individual claims). If the Court grants conditional certification, Defendant's position is that merits discovery should not commence until after the opt-in period has closed so that the parties and the Court have a clear understanding of the size and composition of the collective before embarking on potentially extensive discovery across multiple distribution hubs.

Merits discovery Cutoff:

All merits discovery, including all fact depositions, written discovery (interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission), and expert discovery, shall be completed no later than March 15, 2026.

Fact discovery during Phase 2 shall encompass all discovery relevant to the merits of Plaintiff's FLSA and state-law claims, including but not limited to: the nature and extent of Stonefield's control over drivers' work; the economic reality of the relationship between Stonefield and its drivers under the multi-factor test applied in the Fifth Circuit; the terms and implementation of the various versions of the ICOA; compensation structures and pay records; RouteSync dispatch and GPS telematics data; and any other facts relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in the operative pleadings.

Expert discovery deadlines are set forth in Section 5 below and fall within the merits discovery period, with all expert depositions to be completed by the March 15, 2026 discovery cutoff.

SECTION 4: AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS AND JOINDER OF PARTIES

The following deadlines shall govern amendments to pleadings and joinder of additional parties:

• Deadline to Amend Pleadings: November 14, 2025

• Deadline to Join Additional Parties: November 14, 2025

After the expiration of these deadlines, no party may amend its pleadings or join additional parties except upon a showing of good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and with leave of the Court. The party seeking to amend or join must demonstrate that it acted with reasonable diligence in seeking to amend within the deadline originally set by the Court and that the amendment is not sought for purposes of undue delay.

Defendant notes that the deadline for joinder of additional parties is subject to potential adjustment depending on the Court's ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification and any resulting opt-in process. If conditional certification is granted and opt-in plaintiffs join the action after November 14, 2025, Defendant reserves the right to seek appropriate relief, including but not limited to the right to assert individualized defenses against opt-in plaintiffs and to seek modification of the scheduling order as warranted by the circumstances.

SECTION 5: EXPERT DISCLOSURES

Defendant proposes the following schedule for expert disclosures and expert depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2):

• Defendant's Expert Disclosures (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)): January 15, 2026

• Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures: February 15, 2026

• Rebuttal Expert Disclosures (both parties): March 1, 2026

• Expert Depositions: To be completed by March 15, 2026 (i.e., within the merits discovery cutoff set forth in Section 3.2 above)

All expert disclosures shall comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), including the provision of written reports prepared and signed by each expert witness, containing a complete statement of all opinions the expert will express and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming the opinions, any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinions, the expert's qualifications (including all publications authored in the preceding ten years), a list of all other cases in which the expert has testified at trial or by deposition during the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in this case.

Defendant has retained Corbin Risk Advisors LLC for expert economic and statistical analysis in this matter. Dr. Priya Ramanathan, Managing Director of Corbin Risk Advisors LLC, will serve as Defendant's lead expert consultant and is expected to provide expert testimony regarding, among other things, the economic realities of the independent contractor relationships at issue, statistical analysis of driver earnings and working patterns, and the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of collective treatment of the claims asserted. Defendant reserves the right to designate additional expert witnesses in accordance with the disclosure deadlines set forth above.

Defendant proposes that Defendant's expert disclosures precede Plaintiff's expert disclosures, as set forth above, because Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the drivers at issue are bona fide independent contractors under the FLSA economic reality test when moving for summary judgment, and early disclosure of Defendant's expert analysis will facilitate efficient and focused responsive expert work by Plaintiff. Defendant understands that this sequencing is acceptable to Plaintiff's counsel.

SECTION 6: DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

• Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 30, 2026

• Response Deadline: Twenty-one (21) days after filing, consistent with the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas

• Reply Deadline: Fourteen (14) days after the filing of the response, consistent with the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas

Defendant anticipates filing one or more dispositive motions in this action. Such motions may include, without limitation:

(a) A motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, contending that the Named Plaintiff and opt-in plaintiffs (if any) are independent contractors as a matter of law under the FLSA economic reality test, or alternatively, that genuine disputes of material fact preclude collective treatment and require individualized determinations that are incompatible with the maintenance of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

(b) A motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss or stay the claims of approximately 640 drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 (January 2023 revision) containing a mandatory arbitration clause and class/collective action waiver, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 3-4, if such a motion is not filed at an earlier stage of the proceedings; and

(c) Such other dispositive or partially dispositive motions as may be warranted by the state of the record following the close of discovery.

Defendant reserves all rights with respect to the timing and substance of dispositive motions and does not waive any argument or defense by the description set forth above.

SECTION 7: PRETRIAL AND TRIAL

Defendant proposes the following pretrial and trial schedule:

• Proposed Trial Setting: September 14, 2026

• Joint Pretrial Order Due: August 14, 2026 (thirty (30) days before the proposed trial date)

• Motions in Limine Deadline: August 21, 2026

• Responses to Motions in Limine: August 28, 2026

• Final Pretrial Conference: September 7, 2026 (one week before the proposed trial date), or at such other time as the Court may direct

Estimated Trial Length: Defendant estimates that trial of this matter will require approximately five (5) to seven (7) court days. Defendant acknowledges that the estimated trial length may vary depending on the size and composition of the collective following the conditional certification ruling and any opt-in process, as well as the resolution of any motion to compel arbitration with respect to ICOA v3.0 signatories. If the collective is substantially narrowed or decertified at the second stage (or if a significant number of drivers are compelled to arbitration), the trial may be considerably shorter. Conversely, if a large collective proceeds to trial, additional time may be required.

Jury Trial: Both parties have demanded a trial by jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. This matter will be tried to a jury.

SECTION 8: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION / SETTLEMENT

The parties have discussed the possibility of mediation and are generally amenable to engaging in a structured mediation process at an appropriate juncture in the litigation. Defendant proposes that the Court order mediation to occur within sixty (60) days following the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant submits that mediation will be most productive and efficient after the conditional certification determination, because the scope of the collective (if any) will have a material impact on the valuation of the case and the parties' respective settlement postures.

Defendant is amenable to engaging a mediator agreed upon by the parties or, if the parties are unable to agree, a mediator appointed by the Court. The parties have not yet identified a specific mediator but have discussed several potential candidates with experience in FLSA collective action litigation.

Defendant further notes that informal settlement discussions between the parties are ongoing. Nothing in this Proposed Scheduling Order is intended to preclude or limit the parties' ability to engage in settlement discussions at any time during the pendency of this action.

SECTION 9: ESI AND DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS

The parties have conferred regarding the handling of electronically stored information ("ESI") in this matter and have memorialized their agreements in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed with the Court on June 16, 2025. Defendant respectfully directs the Court's attention to the ESI provisions of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report and incorporates those provisions by reference herein. The key elements of the parties' ESI agreements are summarized below:

Key ESI Sources: The principal sources of ESI in this litigation include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) Data from Stonefield's proprietary RouteSync dispatch platform, which is used to assign delivery routes, track package volume, and manage driver scheduling across all fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs;

(b) GPS telematics logs generated by vehicle-mounted and mobile-device-based tracking systems used by Stonefield drivers in the course of their delivery operations;

(c) Pay records and compensation data, including settlement statements, bonus calculations, fuel surcharge records, and 1099-NEC forms issued to drivers;

(d) Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") across all versions (ICOA v1.0 through ICOA v3.0) executed by drivers at each of the fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs, including any amendments, addenda, or side agreements; and

(e) Internal communications, including emails, text messages, and records from Stonefield's internal messaging system, to the extent relevant and responsive to discovery requests.

ESI Format: The parties have agreed to produce ESI in native or near-native format where practicable. Documents that exist in standard office-application formats (e.g., Word, Excel, and PDF) shall be produced in native format with associated metadata. Email communications shall be produced in a format that preserves metadata, including date, time, sender, recipient, and subject line fields. Where native production is not practicable (e.g., for legacy systems or proprietary database formats), the parties have agreed to meet and confer in good faith regarding an appropriate alternative production format.

Clawback / Non-Waiver Order: The parties have agreed to the entry of a clawback and non-waiver order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. The parties will submit a proposed Rule 502(d) order for the Court's consideration contemporaneously with or shortly following the entry of the scheduling order.

Privilege Log: Defendant notes that privilege issues may arise with respect to pre-litigation legal advice provided to Stonefield by Pennfield & Daye LLP regarding driver classification and the structure of the ICOA program. Defendant will maintain and produce a privilege log as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), identifying all documents or communications withheld on the basis of privilege and providing sufficient information to enable Plaintiff to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection claimed.

SECTION 10: CONFIDENTIALITY / PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties anticipate that discovery in this matter will involve the exchange of confidential and commercially sensitive business information, the disclosure of which could cause competitive harm to Stonefield and could implicate the privacy interests of individual drivers. Accordingly, the parties propose that the Court enter a stipulated protective order governing the treatment of confidential information produced in discovery.

The categories of information that the parties anticipate will require confidential treatment include, without limitation:

(a) Stonefield's financial data, including revenue figures (SLG's fiscal year 2024 revenue was approximately $312.7 million), earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") (approximately $28.4 million for fiscal year 2024), profit margins, cost structures, and financial projections;

(b) Individual driver pay records, earnings histories, and compensation data;

(c) The terms and conditions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") across all versions, including proprietary rate structures, performance incentive calculations, and non-compete and non-solicitation provisions;

(d) Proprietary data from the RouteSync dispatch platform, including algorithms, route optimization parameters, and system architecture documentation; and

(e) Personal identifying information of individual drivers, including Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and financial account information.

The parties will submit a joint proposed protective order for the Court's approval within fourteen (14) days of entry of the scheduling order, or by July 4, 2025, whichever is later. The proposed protective order will include provisions for the designation of materials as "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only," procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and restrictions on the use and dissemination of designated materials.

SECTION 11: OTHER MATTERS

Pending Motions:

Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification was filed on July 14, 2025, and is currently pending before the Court. No other dispositive or substantive motions are presently pending.

Anticipated Motions:

Defendant anticipates potentially filing a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration with respect to approximately 640 delivery drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 (the January 2023 revision of Stonefield's Independent Contractor Operating Agreement). ICOA v3.0 contains a mandatory arbitration clause requiring that all disputes arising out of or relating to the driver's relationship with Stonefield be resolved through binding individual arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Employment Arbitration Rules, as well as a class and collective action waiver providing that the driver agrees to bring any claims against Stonefield solely in the driver's individual capacity and waives any right to participate in a class, collective, or representative action. The timing of such a motion is under consideration by Defendant's counsel and may be filed before or after the Court's ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification, depending on strategic and procedural considerations. Defendant respectfully requests that the scheduling order preserve Defendant's right to file such a motion without prejudice.

Deposition Limits:

Defendant proposes that each side be limited to fifteen (15) fact depositions during Phase 2 merits discovery, subject to adjustment based on the size and composition of the conditionally certified collective (if any). If the collective is conditionally certified and includes a substantial number of opt-in plaintiffs, the parties may need additional depositions to develop an adequate record regarding the individualized circumstances of representative drivers across Stonefield's distribution hubs. Any additional depositions beyond the fifteen (15) per side may be taken by written stipulation of the parties or by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause.

Interrogatory Limit:

Each side shall be limited to twenty-five (25) interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). This limit applies separately to each phase of discovery (i.e., each side is permitted up to 25 interrogatories in Phase 1 and up to 25 interrogatories in Phase 2).

Request for Production Limit:

Each side shall be limited to thirty (30) requests for production of documents per phase. This limit is intended to ensure that discovery requests are focused and proportional to the needs of the case while preserving the parties' ability to obtain all relevant information necessary to the prosecution and defense of the claims and defenses at issue.

SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED DEADLINES

The foregoing deadlines are proposed by Defendant and are subject to modification by the Court. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court adopt these deadlines in the Scheduling Order or modify them as the Court deems appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of June, 2025.

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Bernard Crawford Texas Bar No. 24087561 Responsible Partner

Renata Vasquez Texas Bar No. 24093218 Billing Partner

James Underwood Texas Bar No. 24105742 Lead Associate

Devon Archer Texas Bar No. 24112389 Associate

Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-4200 Facsimile: (214) 555-4201

Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 17, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Proposed Scheduling Order was served upon all counsel of record via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Claudia Hartwell Jordan Brashear Hartwell & Brashear PLLC 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, Texas 75201

Email: chartwell@hartwellbrashear.com

Email: jbrashear@hartwellbrashear.com

________________________________________

Bernard Crawford

PROPOSED ORDER

Having considered Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Proposed Scheduling Order, and having conferred with the parties at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court hereby ORDERS that the deadlines and procedures set forth in the foregoing Proposed Scheduling Order are ADOPTED as the Scheduling Order in this matter, subject to the following modifications (if any):

________________________________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this _ day of ____, 2025.

________________________________________

HON. TIMOTHY FARRELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-01847-RBC

Hon. Rebecca Chen, U.S. District Judge

STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,

Defendant.

Event	Proposed Date
Defendant's Response to Motion for Conditional Certification	August 13, 2025
Plaintiff's Reply on Conditional Certification	August 27, 2025
Opt-In Period (if conditionally certified)	TBD by Court (Defendant proposes 60 days from order)
Deadline to Amend Pleadings / Join Parties	November 14, 2025
Defendant's Expert Disclosures	January 15, 2026
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures	February 15, 2026
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures	March 1, 2026
Discovery Cutoff (all fact and expert discovery)	March 15, 2026
Dispositive Motion Deadline	April 30, 2026
Joint Pretrial Order Due	August 14, 2026
Motions in Limine Deadline	August 21, 2026
Responses to Motions in Limine	August 28, 2026
Final Pretrial Conference	September 7, 2026
Trial Setting	September 14, 2026

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("Stonefield," "SLG," or "Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully submits this Proposed Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and the Court's direction at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on June 18, 2025, before the Honorable Timothy Farrell, United States Magistrate Judge. This Proposed Scheduling Order is submitted in advance of the Scheduling Conference so that the Court may have the benefit of Defendant's position on the appropriate timing and phasing of proceedings in this matter.
Defendant submits this proposal through its counsel of record, Bernard Crawford, Responsible Partner, and Renata Vasquez, Billing Partner, of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600, Dallas, Texas 75201. Prior to the preparation of this filing, Defendant's counsel conferred in good faith with Plaintiff's lead counsel, Claudia Hartwell of Hartwell & Brashear PLLC, regarding the proposed deadlines and structure set forth herein, as required by the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas. The parties have reached agreement on the majority of the deadlines and procedural framework proposed below, including the amendment deadline, expert disclosure sequence, and trial setting. However, the parties disagree on certain matters, most notably (i) whether merits discovery should be stayed or limited pending the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, and (ii) the appropriate length of any opt-in period following conditional certification. Where the parties' positions diverge, Defendant has noted the disagreement and explained its position for the Court's consideration.
SECTION 1: NATURE OF THE ACTION
This action arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and is brought by Named Plaintiff Marcus Delano as a collective action on behalf of himself and all others allegedly similarly situated. Plaintiff also asserts supplemental state-law claims under the Texas Payday Law, Texas Labor Code §§ 61.001 et seq., and related provisions of the Texas Labor Code.
Named Plaintiff Marcus Delano is a former delivery driver who performed services for Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. under an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement ("ICOA"). Plaintiff alleges that Stonefield misclassified Mr. Delano and approximately 1,200 similarly situated delivery drivers across Stonefield's network of distribution hubs as independent contractors rather than employees. Plaintiff contends that this alleged misclassification resulted in the denial of overtime compensation to which the drivers were purportedly entitled under the FLSA and applicable Texas wage-and-hour laws.
Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an equal amount pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations in their entirety. Stonefield maintains that its delivery drivers, including Mr. Delano, are and have been bona fide independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test, as consistently applied by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant contends that the drivers at issue exercised meaningful entrepreneurial control over their work, including the ability to negotiate compensation rates, hire helpers and substitute drivers, service multiple clients, set their own schedules within broad parameters, and operate their own vehicles and equipment. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff's claims fail on an individual basis and are wholly unsuitable for collective treatment under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
The Court should be aware that there is presently pending before the Court Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification (filed July 14, 2025), which seeks conditional certification of a collective of "all current and former delivery drivers who performed services for Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. at any of its distribution hubs nationwide during the period from July 14, 2022 to the present." The resolution of this motion will have a significant impact on the scope, phasing, and cost of discovery in this matter, and Defendant respectfully submits that the scheduling order should be structured to account for the contingencies that may arise depending on the Court's ruling.
SECTION 2: PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The parties to this action and their respective counsel of record are as follows:
Plaintiff:
Marcus Delano 3417 Calmont Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Represented by:
Hartwell & Brashear PLLC 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-8700 Facsimile: (214) 555-8701
Claudia Hartwell, Lead Counsel
Email: chartwell@hartwellbrashear.com
Jordan Brashear
Email: jbrashear@hartwellbrashear.com
Defendant:
Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800 Irving, Texas 75039
Represented by:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-4200 Facsimile: (214) 555-4201
Bernard Crawford, Responsible Partner
Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com
Renata Vasquez, Billing Partner
Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com
James Underwood, Lead Associate
Email: junderwood@calderwoodharkness.com
Devon Archer, Associate
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
SECTION 3: PROPOSED PHASED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
Defendant respectfully proposes that discovery in this matter be conducted in two distinct phases, structured around the resolution of Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. Phased discovery is warranted in FLSA collective actions to ensure that the scope and burden of discovery are proportional to the claims and defenses actually at issue, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), and to prevent the parties and the Court from expending unnecessary resources on merits discovery that may prove largely or entirely moot depending on the outcome of the conditional certification determination.
3.1 Phase 1 — Conditional Certification discovery and Briefing
Defendant proposes that Phase 1 of discovery be strictly limited to issues relevant to the pending Motion for Conditional Certification and that merits discovery be bifurcated from conditional certification discovery. This approach is consistent with the practice widely adopted by courts in the Northern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit in managing FLSA collective actions. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xeroxx Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987) (establishing the two-stage certification framework); Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995).
Conditional Certification Briefing Schedule:
The following briefing schedule governs Plaintiff's pending Motion for Conditional Certification:
•  Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification: Filed July 14, 2025
•  Defendant's Response in Opposition: Due August 13, 2025 (30 days after filing of motion)
•  Plaintiff's Reply in Support: Due August 27, 2025 (14 days after response)
•  Oral Argument: At the Court's convenience following completion of briefing, if requested by either party or deemed appropriate by the Court
Phase 1 discovery:
During Phase 1, discovery shall be limited to issues bearing on conditional certification — specifically, whether the putative collective members are "similarly situated" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) such that conditional certification is appropriate. Phase 1 discovery may include, without limitation, discovery concerning the job duties and working conditions of the Named Plaintiff and putative collective members, the terms of the ICOAs executed by various drivers, and the degree of uniformity (or lack thereof) in Stonefield's policies and practices across its distribution hubs. Phase 1 discovery shall be completed by the close of the conditional certification briefing period, i.e., no later than August 27, 2025.
Defendant's Position on Stay of Merits discovery:
Defendant's position is that merits discovery should be stayed or substantially limited pending the Court's resolution of the Motion for Conditional Certification. Allowing full-scale merits discovery to proceed before the Court determines whether a collective should be conditionally certified — and if so, the scope of that collective — would impose undue burden and expense on Defendant. If conditional certification is denied, or if the collective is substantially narrowed from the approximately 1,200 drivers Plaintiff identifies, then much of any merits discovery conducted in the interim will have been unnecessary and wasteful. This concern is heightened by the geographic breadth of Plaintiff's proposed collective, which spans all fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs across multiple states.
Defendant notes that Plaintiff's counsel has indicated disagreement with a stay of merits discovery. Plaintiff's position, as communicated during the parties' Rule 26(f) conference, is that merits discovery should proceed concurrently with conditional certification briefing to avoid unnecessary delay. Defendant respectfully submits that the efficiency gains from phasing outweigh any marginal delay, particularly given the magnitude of discovery that would be required across Stonefield's operations.
Defendant's Reservation Regarding Motion to Compel Arbitration:
Defendant further notes that it may file a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration with respect to approximately 640 delivery drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 (the January 2023 revision of Stonefield's Independent Contractor Operating Agreement). ICOA v3.0 contains a mandatory arbitration clause and a class and collective action waiver that Defendant contends is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and controlling Fifth Circuit precedent. Defendant reserves the right to file such a motion at the appropriate time, which may be before or after the Court's ruling on conditional certification. The resolution of any such motion may further impact the scope of the collective and, correspondingly, the scope and burden of merits discovery. Defendant respectfully requests that the scheduling order preserve its right to seek appropriate relief regarding the arbitration agreements without prejudice.
3.2 Phase 2 — Merits discovery
Opt-In Period:
If the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in whole or in part, Defendant proposes that the Court order a sixty (60)-day opt-in period, commencing from the date of the Court's order granting conditional certification, during which putative collective members may submit their consent-to-join forms pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendant submits that a 60-day opt-in period is reasonable and consistent with the practice of courts in this District. Defendant understands that Plaintiff may seek a 90-day opt-in period; Defendant respectfully opposes any period exceeding 60 days as unnecessary in light of the notice mechanisms available through modern electronic and postal communications.
Merits discovery Commencement:
Phase 2 merits discovery shall commence upon the later of: (a) the Court's ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification and expiration of the opt-in period (if conditional certification is granted), or (b) the date of the Court's order denying conditional certification (in which case merits discovery shall commence immediately and proceed as to the Named Plaintiff's individual claims). If the Court grants conditional certification, Defendant's position is that merits discovery should not commence until after the opt-in period has closed so that the parties and the Court have a clear understanding of the size and composition of the collective before embarking on potentially extensive discovery across multiple distribution hubs.
Merits discovery Cutoff:
All merits discovery, including all fact depositions, written discovery (interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission), and expert discovery, shall be completed no later than March 15, 2026.
Fact discovery during Phase 2 shall encompass all discovery relevant to the merits of Plaintiff's FLSA and state-law claims, including but not limited to: the nature and extent of Stonefield's control over drivers' work; the economic reality of the relationship between Stonefield and its drivers under the multi-factor test applied in the Fifth Circuit; the terms and implementation of the various versions of the ICOA; compensation structures and pay records; RouteSync dispatch and GPS telematics data; and any other facts relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in the operative pleadings.
Expert discovery deadlines are set forth in Section 5 below and fall within the merits discovery period, with all expert depositions to be completed by the March 15, 2026 discovery cutoff.
SECTION 4: AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS AND JOINDER OF PARTIES
The following deadlines shall govern amendments to pleadings and joinder of additional parties:
•  Deadline to Amend Pleadings: November 14, 2025
•  Deadline to Join Additional Parties: November 14, 2025
After the expiration of these deadlines, no party may amend its pleadings or join additional parties except upon a showing of good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and with leave of the Court. The party seeking to amend or join must demonstrate that it acted with reasonable diligence in seeking to amend within the deadline originally set by the Court and that the amendment is not sought for purposes of undue delay.
Defendant notes that the deadline for joinder of additional parties is subject to potential adjustment depending on the Court's ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification and any resulting opt-in process. If conditional certification is granted and opt-in plaintiffs join the action after November 14, 2025, Defendant reserves the right to seek appropriate relief, including but not limited to the right to assert individualized defenses against opt-in plaintiffs and to seek modification of the scheduling order as warranted by the circumstances.
SECTION 5: EXPERT DISCLOSURES
Defendant proposes the following schedule for expert disclosures and expert depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2):
•  Defendant's Expert Disclosures (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)): January 15, 2026
•  Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures: February 15, 2026
•  Rebuttal Expert Disclosures (both parties): March 1, 2026
•  Expert Depositions: To be completed by March 15, 2026 (i.e., within the merits discovery cutoff set forth in Section 3.2 above)
All expert disclosures shall comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), including the provision of written reports prepared and signed by each expert witness, containing a complete statement of all opinions the expert will express and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming the opinions, any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support the opinions, the expert's qualifications (including all publications authored in the preceding ten years), a list of all other cases in which the expert has testified at trial or by deposition during the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in this case.
Defendant has retained Corbin Risk Advisors LLC for expert economic and statistical analysis in this matter. Dr. Priya Ramanathan, Managing Director of Corbin Risk Advisors LLC, will serve as Defendant's lead expert consultant and is expected to provide expert testimony regarding, among other things, the economic realities of the independent contractor relationships at issue, statistical analysis of driver earnings and working patterns, and the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of collective treatment of the claims asserted. Defendant reserves the right to designate additional expert witnesses in accordance with the disclosure deadlines set forth above.
Defendant proposes that Defendant's expert disclosures precede Plaintiff's expert disclosures, as set forth above, because Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the drivers at issue are bona fide independent contractors under the FLSA economic reality test when moving for summary judgment, and early disclosure of Defendant's expert analysis will facilitate efficient and focused responsive expert work by Plaintiff. Defendant understands that this sequencing is acceptable to Plaintiff's counsel.
SECTION 6: DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
•  Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 30, 2026
•  Response Deadline: Twenty-one (21) days after filing, consistent with the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas
•  Reply Deadline: Fourteen (14) days after the filing of the response, consistent with the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas
Defendant anticipates filing one or more dispositive motions in this action. Such motions may include, without limitation:
(a) A motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, contending that the Named Plaintiff and opt-in plaintiffs (if any) are independent contractors as a matter of law under the FLSA economic reality test, or alternatively, that genuine disputes of material fact preclude collective treatment and require individualized determinations that are incompatible with the maintenance of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
(b) A motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss or stay the claims of approximately 640 drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 (January 2023 revision) containing a mandatory arbitration clause and class/collective action waiver, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 3-4, if such a motion is not filed at an earlier stage of the proceedings; and
(c) Such other dispositive or partially dispositive motions as may be warranted by the state of the record following the close of discovery.
Defendant reserves all rights with respect to the timing and substance of dispositive motions and does not waive any argument or defense by the description set forth above.
SECTION 7: PRETRIAL AND TRIAL
Defendant proposes the following pretrial and trial schedule:
•  Proposed Trial Setting: September 14, 2026
•  Joint Pretrial Order Due: August 14, 2026 (thirty (30) days before the proposed trial date)
•  Motions in Limine Deadline: August 21, 2026
•  Responses to Motions in Limine: August 28, 2026
•  Final Pretrial Conference: September 7, 2026 (one week before the proposed trial date), or at such other time as the Court may direct
Estimated Trial Length: Defendant estimates that trial of this matter will require approximately five (5) to seven (7) court days. Defendant acknowledges that the estimated trial length may vary depending on the size and composition of the collective following the conditional certification ruling and any opt-in process, as well as the resolution of any motion to compel arbitration with respect to ICOA v3.0 signatories. If the collective is substantially narrowed or decertified at the second stage (or if a significant number of drivers are compelled to arbitration), the trial may be considerably shorter. Conversely, if a large collective proceeds to trial, additional time may be required.
Jury Trial: Both parties have demanded a trial by jury pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. This matter will be tried to a jury.
SECTION 8: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION / SETTLEMENT
The parties have discussed the possibility of mediation and are generally amenable to engaging in a structured mediation process at an appropriate juncture in the litigation. Defendant proposes that the Court order mediation to occur within sixty (60) days following the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant submits that mediation will be most productive and efficient after the conditional certification determination, because the scope of the collective (if any) will have a material impact on the valuation of the case and the parties' respective settlement postures.
Defendant is amenable to engaging a mediator agreed upon by the parties or, if the parties are unable to agree, a mediator appointed by the Court. The parties have not yet identified a specific mediator but have discussed several potential candidates with experience in FLSA collective action litigation.
Defendant further notes that informal settlement discussions between the parties are ongoing. Nothing in this Proposed Scheduling Order is intended to preclude or limit the parties' ability to engage in settlement discussions at any time during the pendency of this action.
SECTION 9: ESI AND DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS
The parties have conferred regarding the handling of electronically stored information ("ESI") in this matter and have memorialized their agreements in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed with the Court on June 16, 2025. Defendant respectfully directs the Court's attention to the ESI provisions of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report and incorporates those provisions by reference herein. The key elements of the parties' ESI agreements are summarized below:
Key ESI Sources: The principal sources of ESI in this litigation include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Data from Stonefield's proprietary RouteSync dispatch platform, which is used to assign delivery routes, track package volume, and manage driver scheduling across all fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs;
(b) GPS telematics logs generated by vehicle-mounted and mobile-device-based tracking systems used by Stonefield drivers in the course of their delivery operations;
(c) Pay records and compensation data, including settlement statements, bonus calculations, fuel surcharge records, and 1099-NEC forms issued to drivers;
(d) Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") across all versions (ICOA v1.0 through ICOA v3.0) executed by drivers at each of the fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs, including any amendments, addenda, or side agreements; and
(e) Internal communications, including emails, text messages, and records from Stonefield's internal messaging system, to the extent relevant and responsive to discovery requests.
ESI Format: The parties have agreed to produce ESI in native or near-native format where practicable. Documents that exist in standard office-application formats (e.g., Word, Excel, and PDF) shall be produced in native format with associated metadata. Email communications shall be produced in a format that preserves metadata, including date, time, sender, recipient, and subject line fields. Where native production is not practicable (e.g., for legacy systems or proprietary database formats), the parties have agreed to meet and confer in good faith regarding an appropriate alternative production format.
Clawback / Non-Waiver Order: The parties have agreed to the entry of a clawback and non-waiver order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. The parties will submit a proposed Rule 502(d) order for the Court's consideration contemporaneously with or shortly following the entry of the scheduling order.
Privilege Log: Defendant notes that privilege issues may arise with respect to pre-litigation legal advice provided to Stonefield by Pennfield & Daye LLP regarding driver classification and the structure of the ICOA program. Defendant will maintain and produce a privilege log as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), identifying all documents or communications withheld on the basis of privilege and providing sufficient information to enable Plaintiff to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection claimed.
SECTION 10: CONFIDENTIALITY / PROTECTIVE ORDER
The parties anticipate that discovery in this matter will involve the exchange of confidential and commercially sensitive business information, the disclosure of which could cause competitive harm to Stonefield and could implicate the privacy interests of individual drivers. Accordingly, the parties propose that the Court enter a stipulated protective order governing the treatment of confidential information produced in discovery.
The categories of information that the parties anticipate will require confidential treatment include, without limitation:
(a) Stonefield's financial data, including revenue figures (SLG's fiscal year 2024 revenue was approximately $312.7 million), earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") (approximately $28.4 million for fiscal year 2024), profit margins, cost structures, and financial projections;
(b) Individual driver pay records, earnings histories, and compensation data;
(c) The terms and conditions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") across all versions, including proprietary rate structures, performance incentive calculations, and non-compete and non-solicitation provisions;
(d) Proprietary data from the RouteSync dispatch platform, including algorithms, route optimization parameters, and system architecture documentation; and
(e) Personal identifying information of individual drivers, including Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and financial account information.
The parties will submit a joint proposed protective order for the Court's approval within fourteen (14) days of entry of the scheduling order, or by July 4, 2025, whichever is later. The proposed protective order will include provisions for the designation of materials as "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only," procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and restrictions on the use and dissemination of designated materials.
SECTION 11: OTHER MATTERS
Pending Motions:
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification was filed on July 14, 2025, and is currently pending before the Court. No other dispositive or substantive motions are presently pending.
Anticipated Motions:
Defendant anticipates potentially filing a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration with respect to approximately 640 delivery drivers who executed ICOA v3.0 (the January 2023 revision of Stonefield's Independent Contractor Operating Agreement). ICOA v3.0 contains a mandatory arbitration clause requiring that all disputes arising out of or relating to the driver's relationship with Stonefield be resolved through binding individual arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Employment Arbitration Rules, as well as a class and collective action waiver providing that the driver agrees to bring any claims against Stonefield solely in the driver's individual capacity and waives any right to participate in a class, collective, or representative action. The timing of such a motion is under consideration by Defendant's counsel and may be filed before or after the Court's ruling on the Motion for Conditional Certification, depending on strategic and procedural considerations. Defendant respectfully requests that the scheduling order preserve Defendant's right to file such a motion without prejudice.
Deposition Limits:
Defendant proposes that each side be limited to fifteen (15) fact depositions during Phase 2 merits discovery, subject to adjustment based on the size and composition of the conditionally certified collective (if any). If the collective is conditionally certified and includes a substantial number of opt-in plaintiffs, the parties may need additional depositions to develop an adequate record regarding the individualized circumstances of representative drivers across Stonefield's distribution hubs. Any additional depositions beyond the fifteen (15) per side may be taken by written stipulation of the parties or by leave of Court upon a showing of good cause.
Interrogatory Limit:
Each side shall be limited to twenty-five (25) interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). This limit applies separately to each phase of discovery (i.e., each side is permitted up to 25 interrogatories in Phase 1 and up to 25 interrogatories in Phase 2).
Request for Production Limit:
Each side shall be limited to thirty (30) requests for production of documents per phase. This limit is intended to ensure that discovery requests are focused and proportional to the needs of the case while preserving the parties' ability to obtain all relevant information necessary to the prosecution and defense of the claims and defenses at issue.
SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED DEADLINES
The foregoing deadlines are proposed by Defendant and are subject to modification by the Court. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court adopt these deadlines in the Scheduling Order or modify them as the Court deems appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of June, 2025.
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Bernard Crawford Texas Bar No. 24087561 Responsible Partner
Renata Vasquez Texas Bar No. 24093218 Billing Partner
James Underwood Texas Bar No. 24105742 Lead Associate
Devon Archer Texas Bar No. 24112389 Associate
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-4200 Facsimile: (214) 555-4201
Email: bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 17, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Proposed Scheduling Order was served upon all counsel of record via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Claudia Hartwell Jordan Brashear Hartwell & Brashear PLLC 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, Texas 75201
Email: chartwell@hartwellbrashear.com
Email: jbrashear@hartwellbrashear.com
________________________________________
Bernard Crawford
PROPOSED ORDER
Having considered Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Proposed Scheduling Order, and having conferred with the parties at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court hereby ORDERS that the deadlines and procedures set forth in the foregoing Proposed Scheduling Order are ADOPTED as the Scheduling Order in this matter, subject to the following modifications (if any):
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this _ day of ____, 2025.
________________________________________
HON. TIMOTHY FARRELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
<!-- indent:2 -->Plaintiff,<!-- /indent -->
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-01847-RBC
v.
Hon. Rebecca Chen, U.S. District Judge
STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC., | Hon. Timothy Farrell, U.S. Magistrate Judge
<!-- indent:2 -->Defendant.<!-- /indent -->
Event | Proposed Date
Defendant's Response to Motion for Conditional Certification | August 13, 2025
Plaintiff's Reply on Conditional Certification | August 27, 2025
Opt-In Period (if conditionally certified) | TBD by Court (Defendant proposes 60 days from order)
Deadline to Amend Pleadings / Join Parties | November 14, 2025
Defendant's Expert Disclosures | January 15, 2026
Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures | February 15, 2026
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures | March 1, 2026
Discovery Cutoff (all fact and expert discovery) | March 15, 2026
Dispositive Motion Deadline | April 30, 2026
Joint Pretrial Order Due | August 14, 2026
Motions in Limine Deadline | August 21, 2026
Responses to Motions in Limine | August 28, 2026
Final Pretrial Conference | September 7, 2026
Trial Setting | September 14, 2026

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

SECTION 1: NATURE OF THE ACTION

SECTION 2: PARTIES AND COUNSEL

SECTION 3: PROPOSED PHASED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

SECTION 4: AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS AND JOINDER OF PARTIES

SECTION 5: EXPERT DISCLOSURES

SECTION 6: DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

SECTION 7: PRETRIAL AND TRIAL

SECTION 8: ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION / SETTLEMENT

SECTION 9: ESI AND DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS

SECTION 10: CONFIDENTIALITY / PROTECTIVE ORDER

SECTION 11: OTHER MATTERS

SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED DEADLINES

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PROPOSED ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. TIMOTHY FARRELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts