Ratcliffe v. Apex Systems, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BERNICE RATCLIFFE, Case No.: 19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 12 v. DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13 APEX SYSTEMS, LLC, REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 14 Defendants. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 15 16 [ECF No. 36]

19 Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of 20 a discovery dispute filed on May 14, 2020. (ECF No. 36). The Joint Motion 21 presents Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to certain Requests 22 for Production of documents served upon Defendant. 23 At the outset, the statement of “Preliminary Matters” supplied by 24 counsel for Plaintiff is offensive to the Court. (ECF No. 36-1 at 4).1 25 26 1 Disparaging opposing counsel is always inappropriate. Future outbursts will 2 be met with sanctions. 3 This is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges violations of the 4 California Labor Code. The First Amended Complaint, filed on January 14, 5 2020, alleges eight causes of action: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period 6 premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final 7 wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements; unreimbursed 8 business expenses; and unfair business practices. (ECF No. 22). Defendant 9 is in the business of placing contract employees at various businesses. 10 Plaintiff was an employee placed by Defendant and paid by Defendant on an 11 hourly basis. Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of all current and former 12 California-based hourly-paid employees of Defendant within the State of 13 California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing 14 of this Complaint to final judgment. (Id.). 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 17 discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 18 defense and proportional to the needs of the case....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 19 “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence 20 to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to limit 21 discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 22 duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 23 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 24 A party may request the production of any document within the scope of 25 Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response 26 1 must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 2 requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule 3 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 4 information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 5 completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 6 reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 7 whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 8 objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 9 part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding 10 party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, 11 custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is 12 not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the 13 possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the 14 document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 15 document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 16 Prior to certification of a class, some discovery regarding the class may 17 be appropriate. See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 18 942 (9th Cir. 2009)(“Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that 19 often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class certification 20 and that some discovery will be warranted.”). Discovery likely is warranted 21 where the requested discovery will resolve factual issues necessary for the 22 determination of whether the action may be maintained as a class action. 23 Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). 24 Plaintiff carries the burden of making either a prima facie showing that the 25 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) to maintain a class action have been met 26 or “that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” 1 DISCUSSION 2 In presenting the matter to the Court, Plaintiff grouped the requests 3 and Defendant responded in kind. The Court will address the matter in the 4 same fashion. 5 1. Class Data 6 According to Plaintiff, this group includes Requests for Production 7 (“RFP”) 8-12 and 26 seeking time sheets, payroll data, meal period waivers 8 and the like for the entire putative class. Defendant asserts that it has 9 produced the requested information for Plaintiff personally, but objects to the 10 production of this information on a class-wide basis. Defendant alleges that 11 there are potential class members with arbitration clauses in their 12 employment agreement and it would be unduly burdensome to produce that 13 information. The Joint Motion reflects that there was discussion between the 14 parties regarding producing a limited sample of the remaining putative class 15 members, redacting personally identifiable information, but the parties could 16 not agree on the extent of the sample. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff 17 has made no showing, or even attempted to show, that the requested 18 discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class, as required by 19 Mantolete. 20 It is curious, that having received the requested information regarding 21 Plaintiff’s individual claims, Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest that those 22 records substantiate her claims, much less the class claims. If these records 23 support her claim, the Court likely would order production of a sampling of 24 the records of other employees to see if the issues presented in Plaintiff’s 25 records are replicated in the records of others. See, e.g., DeLodder v. Aerotek, 26 Inc., No. CV-08-6044-CAS-AGRx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009). Plaintiff can only 1 allegations from the records provided, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 2 she is entitled to the records of others. Regarding these RFP’s, Plaintiff’s 3 motion to compel is denied for failing to meet the Mandolete test. 4 2. Job Titles and Work Duties 5 This category, according to Plaintiff, refers to RFPs 21 and 22 seeking 6 job descriptions, work duties, and job titles for the putative class members. 7 Plaintiff fails to present any argument regarding the relevance of these 8 documents to her class allegations. Plaintiff’s proposed class is defined as all 9 hourly employees and does not assert claims based on job titles, descriptions 10 or duties. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of these documents is 11 denied for lack of a showing of relevance to any claim or defense and for 12 failing to meet the Mandolete test. 13 3. Worker Classification 14 This category, according to Plaintiff, refers to RFPs 23, 24, 27 and 28. 15 The requests seek documents reflecting the classification of workers as 16 exempt or non-exempt and questionnaires or surveys regarding hours worked 17 or activities performed. Plaintiff again fails to provide any statement of 18 relevance. Plaintiff has not alleged mis-classification in her First Amended 19 Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of these documents is 20 denied for lack of relevance to any claim or defense. 21 4. Defendant’s Policies 22 This category, according to Plaintiff, refers to RFPs 13-20 and 25 and 23 requests “policies applicable to the putative class.” (ECF No. 36-1 at 8). For 24 clarity, the category includes: RFP 13 requesting documents reflecting 25 Defendant’s policies regarding rest breaks; RFP 14 asking for the same 26 regarding meal breaks; RFP 15 asking for policies regarding overtime; RFP 1 |Jincluding timing of payment during employment and upon termination, rates 9 ||of pay and categories of wages; RFP 18 pertaining to worker classification; 3 || RFP 19 relating to itemized wage statements; RFP 20 pertaining to time- 4 || keeping; and RFP 25 relating to methods for determining hours worked. 5 Defendant asserts that it has produced all policies pertaining to 6 || Plaintiff while she was employed by Defendant. While there may be some 7 || variations for employees placed at different businesses, Defendant asserts g Plaintiff has provided no basis for Defendant to conduct a search, 9 ||employee by employee for those differing policies. To do so, they say, would 10 unduly burdensome. 11 Plaintiff does not offer any argument that the policies that it has 12 ||received from Defendant support any of Plaintiff's causes of action. The 13 Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present information sufficient to 14 satisfy the Mandolete test and denies the motion to compel regarding these 15 || RFPs. 16 CONCLUSION 17 As presented in this Joint Motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is 18 || DENIED. 19 || Dated: May 26, 2020 . Miter Sou Le Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27