Ashirwad v. Charter Communications, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- David D. Leshner (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of work orders relevant to their Labor Code § 204 claim. The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of non-archived information available from early 2021, and denied the motion as to all other work orders.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Compel granted in part regarding RFP No. 40 (limited to non-archived information from early 2021)“Given this concession, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to the “non-archived information” referenced by Defendants and DENIES the motion as to any additional work orders.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the proportionality factors of Rule 26(b)(1). It found that the requested documents were not relevant to the specific § 204 claim because that statute does not create a private right of action for underpayment, only for timing. Furthermore, the court found the request disproportionate due to the burden of manually reviewing non-searchable data. The grant was limited to what the defendant voluntarily conceded was available, which is a standard and appropriate resolution for a discovery dispute where the broader request fails on relevance/proportionality grounds. |
Motion to Compel denied in part regarding RFP No. 40 (additional work orders)“The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established how the work orders are relevant to a claim or defense given that Labor Code § 204 does not provide a private right of action and § 204 regulates only the timing of wage payments, not the underpayment of wages alleged by Plaintiffs. Moreover, even assuming the Plaintiffs could establish the relevance of the work orders to their other claims, discovery of the work orders is not proportional to the needs of the case given the burden that would be placed on Defendants requiring them to manually review and locate individual work orders pertaining to Plaintiffs.” | agree with court The court relied on the proposition that Labor Code § 204 does not provide a private right of action for underpayment of wages, citing district court cases (Rivera, Frausto, Carter). While these are persuasive district court opinions, the legal principle that § 204 is a timing statute and not a substantive wage payment statute is well-established in California law. The court also applied the proportionality requirement of Rule 26(b)(1), noting the burden of manual review of non-searchable data. This is a sound application of discovery rules. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standards for a motion to compel. It correctly identifies the burden on the moving party to show relevance and proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1). The court's analysis of Labor Code § 204, while relying on district court cases rather than binding appellate authority, accurately reflects the prevailing legal interpretation that § 204 is a timing provision and does not create a private right of action for underpayment. The court also appropriately considered the burden of production (manual review of non-searchable data) as a factor in the proportionality analysis. The decision to grant the motion only to the extent of the defendant's voluntary concession is a reasonable and efficient resolution.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAGATH ASHIRWAD, et al., Case No.: 21-cv-2101-AJB-DDL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL RE REQUEST FOR 14 PRODUCTION NO. 40 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 15 et al., [Dkt. No. 60] 16 Defendants. 17 19 On February 10, 2023, the Court held a discovery hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to 20 Compel Defendants to produce documents as to Plaintiffs Jagath Ashirwad, Eric Lopez, 21 and Jeremiah Marchesano. Dkt. No. 60. Annette C. Clark and Ryan J. Carlson appeared 22 for Plaintiffs. Samson C. Huang appeared for Defendants. The Court issued a written 23 Order following the hearing and thereafter requested supplemental briefing regarding 24 Plaintiffs’ Request For Production (“RFP”) No. 40. Dkt. Nos. 64, 66, 71. Having 25 considered the supplemental briefing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to 26 compel as to RFP No. 40. 27 RFP No. 40 seeks “Any and all WORK ORDERS for sales completed by any of the 28 PLAINTIFFS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” Plaintiffs contend the work 1 orders – which contain information regarding specific sales and installations – are relevant 2 to their fourth cause of action alleging a violation of California Labor Code § 204. That 3 cause of action alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs all wages owed to them, 4 including incentive-based wages, overtime and premium wages, wages for missed meal 5 and rest breaks and wages for “PTO hours.” Dkt. No. 1-2 at 22. 6 Defendants point out that Labor Code § 204 “does not provide a private right of 7 action.” Rivera v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., No. CV 22-267-GW-EX, 2022 WL 8 18337695, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2022). Rather, the statute “simply regulates the 9 timing of wage payments and does not provide for the payment of any particular type of 10 wages or create any substantive right to wages.” Frausto v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, No. 11 18-cv-01983-LB, 2018 WL 3659251, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018). “[A] violation of 12 section 204 cannot be premised solely on the claim that an employer underpaid wages.” 13 Carter v. Jai-Put Enter. Inc., No. 18-cv-06313-DMR, 2020 WL 3545094, at *10 (N.D. 14 Cal. June 30, 2020). Defendants explain that they have provided Plaintiffs with documents 15 pertaining to the sales for which Plaintiffs received commissions. In addition, work orders 16 are maintained in a “non-searchable format” within a “customer-oriented billing system 17 organized primarily based on customer account numbers . . . .” Dkt. No. 71 at 4. 18 Defendants would have to manually review all the work orders for MDU Reps over the 19 relevant time period to find work orders pertaining to the individual Plaintiffs. Id. 20 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 21 any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 26(b)(1). The party seeking discovery must “inform the court why the information 23 sought is relevant and why the opposing party’s objections are not justified.” Heilman v. 24 Cook, No. 14-CV-01412-JLS-AGS, 2017 WL 491737, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) 25 (citation omitted). Stated otherwise, “[t]he party seeking to compel discovery has the 26 burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevance requirement of Rule 26.” 27 FlowRider Surf, Ltd. v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., No. 15-cv-1879-BEN-BLM, 2016 WL 28 6522807, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016). 1 The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established how the work orders are 2 ||relevant to a claim or defense given that Labor Code § 204 does not provide a private right 3 || of action and § 204 regulates only the timing of wage payments, not the underpayment of 4 || wages alleged by Plaintiffs. Moreover, even assuming the Plaintiffs could establish the 5 ||relevance of the work orders to their other claims, discovery of the work orders is not 6 || proportional to the needs of the case given the burden that would be placed on Defendants 7 requiring them to manually review and locate individual work orders pertaining to 8 || Plaintiffs. 9 Defendants acknowledge that “[I]imited, non-archived information is available from 10 approximately early 2021, which Charter is willing to produce.” Dkt. No. 71 at 4. Given 11 || this concession, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to the “non- 12 ||archived information” referenced by Defendants and DENIES the motion as to any 13 || additional work orders. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: March 1, 2023 17 18 Th Lh, 19 / BthtE) L5f4/] C a 20 Honorable David D. Leshner United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889) No. 11991 · 1889-07-17