Mia Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc. et al

Filing 44

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato: granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Compel. (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 17-0225-DOC (KKx)

Date: September 29, 2017

Title: Gordon v. Aerotek, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEB TAYLOR

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
[Dkt. 35]

On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff Mia Gordon (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel seeking
production of documents and further responses to (1) Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9,
11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36; (2) Request for Production, Set Two, Nos. 1,
11; and (3) Special Interrogatory, Set One, No. 2 (“Motion to Compel”).1 ECF Docket No.
(“Dkt.”) 35. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint in San Bernardino
County Superior Court against Defendant Aerotek, Inc. (“Defendant”) for unfair competition,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, and failure
to provide wages when due. Dkt. 1-1, Compl.
1

While Plaintiff also sets out the text of Request for Production, Set One, No. 25 in the
Joint Stipulation, Plaintiff makes no specific argument regarding this request. Hence, it appears
Plaintiff has abandoned her request for further responses as to Request for Production, Set One,
No. 25, and her Motion to Compel as to this Request is DENIED.
Page 1 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

On February 6, 2017, Defendant filed a notice of removal from San Bernardino Superior
Court. Dkt. 1.
On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff served the first set of discovery requests. Declaration of
Victoria B. Rivapalacio in Support of Motion to Compel (“Rivapalacio Decl.”), ¶ 3. On April 24,
2017, Defendant provided its responses. Id., Exs. 1, 2.
On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff served the second set of discovery requests. Rivapalacio
Decl., ¶ 4.
On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”), which the Court granted on April 18, 2017. Dkt. 22. On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed
the FAC. Dkt. 24.
On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email regarding the
deficiencies in Defendant’s first set of discovery responses. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 4.
On May 11, 2017, Defendant served its responses to Plaintiff’s second set of discovery
requests. Rivapalacio Decl., ¶ 4.
On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email regarding the
deficiencies in both of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Rivapalacio
Decl., Ex. 5.
On May 22, 2017, counsel for both parties met and conferred telephonically and reached a
number of agreements to amicably resolve various discovery issues. Rivapalacio Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 4;
Declaration of Amanda C. Dupree in Support of Defendant’s Opposition (“Dupree Decl.”), ¶ 2.
On May 23, 2017, Planitiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel an email memorializing
the agreements reached during the May 22, 2017 meet and confer conference. Rivapalacio Decl.,
Ex. 5.
On June 5, 2017, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email correcting and
summarizing the agreements reached during the May 22, 2017 meet and confer conference.
Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7.
On June 8, 2017, the Court issued a Protective Order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
Dkts. 27, 28.
On June 14, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation for extension of time and for leave for
Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which the Court granted. Dkts. 30, 31.
On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a SAC alleging the following four causes of action against
Defendant: (1) unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (2)
Page 2 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 510 et seq.; (3) failure to
provide wages when due in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, and 203; and (4) violation of
the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Dkt. 32. Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf
of herself and the following classes: (1) “all individuals who are or previously were employed by
DEFENDANT as Account Managers and/or Recruiters in California and who were classified as
exempt from overtime wages (the ‘CALIFORNIA CLASS’),” id. ¶ 6; (2) “all individuals who
are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT as Recruiter Trainees in California and who
were classified as non-exempt (the ‘CALIFORNIA TRAINEE CLASS’),” id. ¶ 7; (3) “all
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS who are or previously were employed by DEFENDANT
as Account Managers and/or Recruiters in California and who were classified as exempt from
overtime wages (the ‘CALIFORNIA LABOR SUBCLASS’),” id. ¶ 47.
On August 2, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative strike
portions of Plaintiff’s SAC. Dkt. 33. Specifically, Defendant argues (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to
assert a PAGA claim on behalf of recruiter trainees and recruiters; (2) Plaintiff’s PAGA claim
does not relate back to the originally-filed complaint and is, therefore, time barred; (3) Plaintiff
lacks standing to assert a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief; and (4) Plaintiff fails to state
a claim for reporting time violation.2 Id. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was taken under
submission on September 26, 2017. Dkt. 43.
On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel and Joint Stipulation
pursuant to Local Rule 37-2. Dkt. 35; Dkt. 35-1, Joint Stipulation (“JS”). Plaintiff filed the
following in support of her Motion to Compel: (1) Declaration of Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Dkt. 352; and (2) Declaration of Plaintiff Mia Gordon, Dkt. 35-3. Defendant filed the following in
support of its Opposition the Motion to Compel: (1) Declaration of Amanda C. Dupree, Dkt. 354, and exhibits attached thereto, Dkt. 35-5; (2) Request for Judicial Notice of several orders
denying class discovery in the Central District of California, Dkt. 35-6, and exhibits attached
thereto, Dkt. 35-7; and (3) Objections to Plaintiff’s Declaration, Dkt. 35-8. On September 11,
2017, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in support of the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 39. The
matter thus stands submitted.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery
regarding:
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
2

Defendant concedes the reporting time claim is not raised as a separate cause of action.
Dkt. 33, Mem. of P&A at 10.
Page 3 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed”
if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;
or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C). Therefore, “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery, the
discovery requested must also be proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v. City of
Fresno, No. 1:16-CV-653 DAD SAB, 2016 WL 7491634, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) (citing In
re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)).
“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, . . . production,
or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure,
answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(4).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO CLASSWIDE DISCOVERY TO THE EXTENT
IT IS RELEVANT TO SUBSTANTIATE CLASS ALLEGATIONS

“District courts have broad discretion to control the class certification process, and
whether or not discovery will be permitted lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009); Del Campo v.
Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“Prior to certification of a class action,
discovery is generally limited and in the discretion of the court.”). “Although in some cases a
district court should allow discovery to aid the determination of whether a class action is
maintainable, the plaintiff bears the burden of advancing a prima facie showing that the class
action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce
substantiation of the class allegations. Absent such a showing, a trial court’s refusal to allow class
discovery is not an abuse of discretion.” Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir.
1985), as amended (Aug. 27, 1985). “In determining whether to grant discovery the court must
consider its need, the time required, and the probability of discovery resolving any factual issue
necessary for the determination. . . . Where the necessary factual issues may be resolved without
discovery, it is not required.” Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975).
Defendant argues Plaintiff is not entitled to classwide discovery because (1) Plaintiff fails
to show she will obtain a different result on class certification than plaintiffs in Delodder v.
Aerotek Inc., 471 F. App’x 804, 806 (9th Cir. 2012) (i.e. that she will prevail on a class
certification motion); (2) Plaintiff fails to satisfy her burden to show the discovery sought will
Page 4 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

likely substantiate her class allegations; and (3) Plaintiff’s PAGA claims are time-barred. JS at
52-81.
First, while similar, this case is distinguishable from DeLodder in that the class Plaintiff
seeks to represent covers a later time period. Second, without evidence, the Court has no way to
know what the result of a class certification motion in this case will be. This Court declines to
address whether Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the class action requirements have
been met and will only permit discovery likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.
Finally, the Court will not permit discovery regarding Plaintiff’s PAGA claims because the
pleadings are not yet settled with regard to the scope of the PAGA claims. See Dkt. 33, Mot. to
Dismiss SAC. Hence, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to classwide discovery to the extent it is
relevant to substantiate class allegations, but discovery regarding the PAGA claims is premature
at this time.
B.

CLASS CONTACT INFORMATION - Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9
and 36

Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9 and 36 seek names, address, phone numbers,
email addresses, rates of pay, and dates of employment for putative class members in “electronic,
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format.” JS at 13, 15.
Defendant objects to the Requests primarily on the grounds they are overbroad and
unduly burdensome, violate the privacy rights of non-parties, and impermissibly seek class-wide
information. JS at 15-16.3
Plaintiff argues “[t]he contact information of the Class Members will lead to the
discovery of evidence as to the commonality of Defendant’s business practices of failing to
provide timely and complaint meal and rest periods and of Defendant’s actual expectations
regarding the Class Members’ job duties and job performance.” JS at 41. Defendant argues
“individualized class member discovery” is inappropriate because Plaintiff has not shown it will
assist in establishing commonality. JS at 68. Defendant claims the requested information will
only serve to show that “individual, not common, questions will predominate.” JS at 66. In the
event the Court grants classwide discovery, Defendant requests the scope of discovery be limited
“to a small sample of employees or to the specific location where the plaintiff worked.” JS at 68.
Plaintiff argues limiting the scope places an “unjustifiable hurdle for Plaintiff to cross in the
prosecution of the case.” JS at 42.
3

Defendant states it has “produced most documents” and “will supplement its
production to produce all agreed-upon documents, and will supplement its responses consistent
with the June 5, 2017 summary of the conference of counsel.” JS at 79. Defendant’s assurance
that it will supplement its responses consistent with the June 5, 2017 summary is confusing at
best, because in that correspondence from Defendant’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel states with
regard to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9 and 36, “Defendant objects to producing this
classwide information.” Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7.
Page 5 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

The Court finds discovery of putative class member contact information is appropriate
and likely to assist in establishing commonality. Moreover, Defendant fails to establish the size of
the putative class would make production unduly burdensome or why information about the
putative class in locations other than the one in which Plaintiff worked would not be relevant.
Instead, contact with those individuals could well be useful for Plaintiff to determine, at a
minimum, the commonality and typicality prongs of Rule 23. Putnam v. Eli Lilly & Co., 508 F.
Supp. 2d 812, 814 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production and
further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9 and 36 is GRANTED.
C.

COMPENSATION POLICIES - Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 16 and 27
and Interrogatory, Set One, No. 2

Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 16 and 27 and Interrogatory, Set One, No. 2 seek
compensation policies for putative class members. JS at 16-18.
Defendant objects to the discovery primarily on the grounds it is overbroad and unduly
burdensome, violates the privacy rights of non-parties, seeks information protected by attorneyclient privilege or work-product doctrine, and impermissibly seeks class-wide information. JS at
17-18. However, Defendant also states it has produced the compensation policies contained in its
handbooks. JS at 79; Dupree Decl., ¶ 9.
Plaintiff argues the policies to which she and the putative class members “were uniformly
subject” are “foundational” and will establish commonality. JS at 43. It is unclear to the Court
what policies might exist that are not contained in Defendant’s handbooks. However, it appears
that there may be additional relevant policies based on Defendant’s argument it is “necessary to
reach an agreement on a narrowed scope.” JS at 79. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
production and further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 16 and 27 and
Interrogatory, Set One, No. 2 is GRANTED to the extent the compensation policies are
applicable to Plaintiff. To the extent Defendant believes the compensation policies are protected
by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant shall provide a privilege log.
D.

ELECTRONIC PAYROLL RECORDS - Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 17
and 18

Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 17 and 18 seek “in electronic, Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet format, all payroll records for” the putative class members. JS at 19-20.
Defendant object to the Requests primarily on the grounds they are overbroad and unduly
burdensome, violate the privacy rights of non-parties, seek information protected by attorneyclient privilege or work-product doctrine, and impermissibly seek class-wide information. JS at
19-21.

Page 6 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

Plaintiff argues the electronic payroll records are relevant to establishing numerosity and
commonality and will show “whether Defendant recorded a missed, late, or short meal period
and, by comparing to the electronic time records, whether Defendant paid the associated
premium.” JS at 44. Defendant argues the electronic time and payroll records will not
substantiate Plaintiff’s claim for meal period violations because they will not show whether
Plaintiff was “forced to forgo [her] meal breaks as opposed to merely showing [s]he did not take
them.” JS at 76-77. Because the records will not show whether Defendant instructed or exerted
undue pressure on Plaintiff or the putative class members to miss meal breaks, they are not
relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for meal period violations. Porch v. Masterfoods, USA, Inc., 685 F.
Supp. 2d 1058, 1070 (C.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d, 364 F. App’x 365 (9th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff cites other cases where courts have found payroll records assisted in determining
numerosity and commonality. JS at 43-44. Plaintiff conclusorily states “time and wage records
are discoverable” and “are relevant documents” without explaining how they will assist in
establishing numerosity or commonality. Id. While the requested information may be relevant to
calculating damages, requiring broad production of payroll records before certification of the
class is not appropriate. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production and further
responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 17 and 18 is DENIED.
E.

TIMESHEETS AND WAGE STATEMENTS – Request for Production, Set One,
Nos. 19 and 20

Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 19 and 20 seek time sheets and wage statements
for putative non-exempt class members. JS at 24.
Defendant objects to the Requests primarily on the grounds they are overbroad and
unduly burdensome, violate the privacy rights of non-parties, and impermissibly seek class-wide
information. JS at 24-25.
Plaintiff argues time sheets and wage statements are relevant to establishing
“commonality, ascertainability, and typicality” because “[t]hey will demonstrate that the
violations [of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay overtime4] were systematic and based on
Defendant’s policies and procedures.” JS at 49. Plaintiff also argues Defendant never
responded to Plaintiff’s May 23, 2017 proposed agreement to “the production of a sample of the
time sheets and wage statements of the non-exempt class members, responsive to FRP, Set 1,
Nos. 19 and 20, respectively, contingent on Defendant’s providing the number of non-exempt
class members at each of the various California locations.” JS at 49; Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 5.
However, Defendant responded on June 5, 2017 by agreeing to “review” and “respond” to any
4

Plaintiff also argues the time sheets and wage statements are relevant to her claims for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, JS at 49. However, while a claim for failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements was included in the original Complaint, there is no
such claim in the SAC. See Dkts. 1-1, 32.
Page 7 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

sampling proposal. Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7. Therefore, while Defendant agreed to consider
producing a sample, the parties did not reach a specific sampling agreement.5 Rivapalacio Decl.,
Ex. 7.
The Court finds discovery of putative class member time sheets and wage statements is
appropriate and likely to assist in establishing commonality of the failure to pay overtime wages.
Moreover, Defendant fails to establish the size of the putative class would make production
unduly burdensome or why information about the putative class in locations other than the one in
which Plaintiff worked would not be relevant. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
production and further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 19 and 20 is
GRANTED.
F.

EXEMPTION DETERMINATION DOCUMENTS – Request for Production, Set
One, No. 33

Request for Production, Set One, No. 33, seeks “All DOCUMENTS used by YOU as
reference and/or as authority in making the determination that the EXEMPT CLASS
MEMBERS should be classified as exempt from receiving overtime wages.” JS at 21.
Defendant objects to the Request on the grounds it is (a) vague and ambiguous, (b)
overbroad, and (c) seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product
doctrine. JS at 22. Defendant also objects that “Aerotek made the determination to classify
recruiters and account managers as exempt many years ago, long before the period at issue in this
action.” Id.
Plaintiff argues the documents relied upon by Defendant in determining exempt
classification is relevant to showing whether there is an improper uniform policy rather than “a
proper evaluation of the actual job duties of the class members.” JS at 45. Defendant argues
documents “as to why Aerotek made classification decisions in the 1980s or 1990s have no
bearing on class certification or liability issues in this case.” JS at 78.
The Court finds the exemption determination documents are likely to assist in
determining the issues of commonality and typicality. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
5

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied because Plaintiff
served her portion of the Joint Stipulation before responding to Defendant’s offer to review a
sampling agreement. JS at 68. Defendant’s June 5, 2017 correspondence states “Defendant
objects to producing classwide information, as explained above. As to these Requests, you said
you would consider a sampling compromise and would let us know what if any sampling proposal
you have in mind. If you decide to make a proposal, we will review it and respond.” Rivapalacio
Decl., Ex. 7. Plaintiff needed to know the number of employees at each location in order to make
a reasonable proposal. Plaintiff was not unreasonable in considering Defendant’s response to be
a rejection of Plaintiff’s proposal. Therefore, the Court will not deny Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel on this basis.
Page 8 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

production and further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 33 is GRANTED. To
the extent Defendant believes the compensation policies are protected by attorney-client
privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant shall provide a privilege log.
G.

PRODUCTIVITY REPORTS - Request for Production, Set Two, No. 11

Request for Production, Set Two, No. 11 seeks “all DOCUMENTS outlining how
DEFENDANT measured the productivity of the EXEMPT CLASS MEMBERS during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” JS at 22.
Defendant objects to the Request on the grounds it is (a) vague and ambiguous, (b)
overbroad, (c) violates the privacy and confidentiality rights of non-parties, (d) an “improper
abuse of the class action procedure and is unduly burdensome,” and (e) seeks confidential or
proprietary information. JS at 22-23.
Plaintiff argues the productivity reports will “demonstrate not only the uniformity of the
job duties, but also, based on the uniformity of the criteria by which Defendant measured the
Recruiters, how uniform Defendant’s expectations were for the class members.” JS at 41.
Plaintiff states in her declaration that she and “all the other recruiters” were required “per
company policy, to document all activities [] completed.” Gordon Decl., ¶ 5. Moreover, the
weekly reports “were completed based on a template provided by Defendant.” Id. ¶ 7.
Defendant argues Plaintiff’s declaration is unconvincing because she does not identify any such
“uniform” job duties or expectations. JS at 66. The Court finds Plaintiff’s declaration provides
a sufficient basis for her belief that the productivity reports will likely substantiate the issue of
commonality.6 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production and further responses to
Request for Production, Set Two, No. 11 is GRANTED.
H.

DEFENDANT SHALL SUPPLEMENT ITS RESPONSES AS AGREED
1.

MEAL PERIOD POLICIES - Request for Production, Set One, No. 11

Request for Production, Set One, No. 11 seeks “all applicable policies for providing
NON-EXEMPT CLASS MEMBERS meal period premiums during the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD.” JS at 23.
Defendant objects “to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous and overbroad and
does not describe a category of documents with reasonable particularity.” JS at 23.
In the June 5, 2017 meet and confer summary, Defendant’s counsel represented
Defendant will supplement its response and produce meal period policies to the extent they exist.
Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7. However, Defendant did not state when it will supplement its response,
6

Defendant’s objection to paragraphs 5 and 7 of Plaintiff’s Declaration on the grounds
Plaintiff’s statements are speculative and lack foundation is OVERRULED.
Page 9 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

and as of the date the Joint Stipulation was filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear the
responses had been supplemented. Defendant does not provide any explanation for its continued
delay in producing responsive documents or supplementing its responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 11 is GRANTED.
2.

FORMS EVALUATIONS - Request for Production, Set One, No. 23

Request for Production, Set One, No. 23 seeks “[e]xemplars of any form document(s)
used to conduct job evaluations and/or performance reviews related to the EXEMPT CLASS
MEMBERS.” JS at 25.
Defendant objects “to this Request because it is vague and ambiguous and does not
describe a category of documents with reasonable particularity. Defendant further objects to this
Request to the extent it calls for disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, including,
but not limited to, commercial, financial, or other trade secret information.” JS at 25.
In the June 5, 2017 meet and confer summary, Defendant’s counsel noted Plaintiff had
clarified the request sought “any documents used by supervisors in evaluating the Exempt
Class.” Rivapacio Decl., Ex. 7. Defendant’s counsel represented Defendant would produce “a
form document called Expected Business Results completed for Plaintiff when she was an
account manager” and “job evaluation form documents completed for Plaintiff when she was a
recruiter trainee.” Id. Defendant’s counsel further represented Defendant was “not aware of
any responsive form documents for recruiters and account managers.” Id. However, Defendant
did not state when it will supplement its response, and as of the date the Joint Stipulation was
filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear the responses had been supplemented. Defendant does
not provide any explanation for its continued delay in producing responsive documents or
supplementing its responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further responses to
Request for Production, Set One, No. 23 as clarified by Plaintiff’s counsel at the May 22, 2017
meet and confer conference is GRANTED.
3.

EXEMPT JOB QUALIFICATIONS - Request for Production, Set One, No.
24

Request for Production, Set One, No. 24 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS which evidence the
qualifications, requirements and/or prerequisites for individuals applying to work for
DEFENDANT as EXEMPT CLASS MEMBERS.” JS at 26.
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds it is (a) vague and ambiguous, (b)
overbroad, (c) seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine, (d) violates the privacy and confidentiality rights of non-parties, (e) seeks confidential
or proprietary information, and (f) an “improper abuse of the class action procedure and is
unduly burdensome.” JS at 26.

Page 10 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

During the May 22, 2017 meet and confer conference, counsel reached an agreement
whereby Defendant would produce “corporate position descriptions, and not individualized
records or one-off job descriptions.” Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7; Dupree Decl., ¶ 5. However,
Defendant did not state when it will supplement its response, and as of the date the Joint
Stipulation was filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear the responses had been supplemented.
Defendant does not provide any explanation for its continued delay in producing responsive
documents or supplementing its responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further
responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 24 as limited by counsel’s agreement at the
May 22, 2017 meet and confer conference is GRANTED.
4.

TIMEKEEPING POLICIES - Request for Production, Set One, No. 29

Request for Production, Set One, No. 29 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS that evidence the
DEFENDANT’S timekeeping policies for the EXEMPT CLASS MEMBERS during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” JS at 28.
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds it (a) is vague and ambiguous, (b) is
overbroad, (c) violates the privacy or confidentiality rights of non-parties, (d) seeks confidential
and proprietary information, and (e) impermissibly seeks “individualized discovery regarding
putative class members.” JS at 28.
In the June 5, 2017 meet and confer summary, Defendant’s counsel represented “no
responsive documents exist, and Defendant [will] supplement its response accordingly.”
Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7. However, Defendant did not state when it will supplement its response,
and as of the date the Joint Stipulation was filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear the
responses had been supplemented. Defendant does not provide any explanation for its continued
delay in producing responsive documents or supplementing its responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 29 is GRANTED.
5.

EXEMPT CLASSIFICATION POLICY - Request for Production, Set One,
No. 31

Request for Production, Set One, No. 31 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS that evidence
DEFENDANT’S company policy for classifying the EXEMPT CLASS MEMBERS as exempt.”
JS at 28.
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds it (a) is vague and ambiguous, (b) is
overbroad, (c) violates the privacy or confidentiality rights of non-parties, (d) seeks confidential
and proprietary information, and (e) impermissibly seeks “individualized discovery regarding
putative class members.” JS at 29.
In the June 5, 2017 meet and confer summary, Defendant’s counsel represented
“Defendant would supplement its response to state that there were no responsive classification
policies.” Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7. However, Defendant did not state when it will supplement
Page 11 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

its response, and as of the date the Joint Stipulation was filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear
the responses had been supplemented. Defendant does not provide any explanation for its
continued delay in producing responsive documents or supplementing its responses. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 31 is
GRANTED.
6.

CORPORATE HIERARCHY - Request for Production, Set One, No. 34

Request for Production, Set One, No. 34 seeks “DOCUMENTS sufficient to evidence
the corporate hierarchy in which the EXEMPT CLASS MEMBERS worked during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” JS at 29.
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds it (a) is vague and ambiguous and
unintelligible, (b) is overbroad, (c) violates the privacy or confidentiality rights of non-parties, (d)
seeks confidential and proprietary information, and (e) impermissibly seeks “individualized
discovery regarding putative class members.” JS at 29-30.
In the June 5, 2017 meet and confer summary, Defendant’s counsel represented
Defendant “would produce corporate position descriptions, which would contain some
responsive information (e.g., the position to which the position reports)” and “training
documents, which may contain responsive information.” Rivapalacio Decl., Ex. 7. However,
Defendant did not state when it will supplement its response, and as of the date the Joint
Stipulation was filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear the responses had been supplemented.
Defendant does not provide any explanation for its continued delay in producing responsive
documents or supplementing its responses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further
responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 34 is GRANTED.
7.

PLAINTIFF’S CALENDAR - Request for Production, Set Two, No. 1

Request for Production, Set Two, No. 1 seeks “in electronic, Microsoft Excel format or
.PST format, the Microsoft Outlook Calendar for PLAINTIFF during the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD (one way Microsoft Outlook calendars can be exported is using the ‘Import and Export
. . .’ command under the ‘File’ tab and following the step-by-step guidance to export the data).”
JS at 30.
Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds it (a) is vague and ambiguous, (b)
overbroad, (c) violates the privacy or confidentiality rights of non-parties, and (d) seeks
confidential and proprietary information. JS at 30. Defendant then states “Subject to execution
and entry of a suitable protective order, Defendant will produce its copy of Plaintiff’s electronic
calendar that she maintained in Microsoft Outlook while employed at Aerotek.” JS at 31.
However, Defendant did not state when it will produce the responsive document, and as of the
date the Joint Stipulation was filed, August 22, 2017, it does not appear the document had been
produced. Defendant does not provide any explanation for its continued delay in producing the

Page 12 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

responsive document. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further responses to Request for
Production, Set Two, No. 1 is GRANTED.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth
above; and
(2) Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order Defendant shall serve supplemental
responses and produce responsive documents to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9, 11, 16,
17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, and 34, Request for Production, Set Two, Nos. 1, and 11, and Special
Interrogatory, Set One, No. 2. Defendant shall also produce a privilege log as appropriate.

Page 13 of 13

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __