Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.

Filing 508

ORDER DENYING 493 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/14/2014. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDRIKA MEDLOCK, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB

v.
ECF NO. 493

14
15

TACO BELL CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 8, 2014, Plaintiffs in this matter filed a motion for reconsideration of the

18 Court’s August 29, 2014 order denying Plaintiffs’ prior motion for summary judgment. (ECF
19 No. 493.) Matthew Theriault and Glenn Danas appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiffs.
20 Tracey Kennedy appeared in person on behalf of Defendants.
21

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

22

I.

23

BACKGROUND

24

In these consolidated actions, Plaintiffs asserted claims against Defendants arising from

25 alleged violations of California’s Labor Code relating to the payment of minimum wages, the
26 payment of overtime wages and the provision of meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs also asserted
27 claims under California’s Private Attorney Generals Act (“PAGA”), which authorizes
28 “aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to recover civil penalties for Labor

1

1 Code violations...”

Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 980 (2009). The operative

2 complaint is the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on June 11, 2014. (ECF No.
3 423.)
4

On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 424.)

5 Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the theory that there was no genuine dispute of material
6 fact regarding the issue of liability and that the only issue that should be resolved by a trial was
7 the issue of damages. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on August 29,
8 2014. (ECF No. 486.) Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of the Court’s order.
9

II.

10

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Local Rule 230(j) states:
(j)
Applications for Reconsideration. Whenever any motion
has been granted or denied in whole or in part, and a subsequent
motion for reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged
different set of facts, counsel shall present to the Judge or
Magistrate Judge to whom such subsequent motion is made an
affidavit or brief, as appropriate, setting forth the material facts and
circumstances surrounding each motion for which reconsideration
is sought, including:
(1)
when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior
motion was made;
(2)
what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon;
(3)
what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to
exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior
motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and
(4)
why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time
of the prior motion.

21

III.

22

DISCUSSION

23

Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration is warranted due to “clear error” by the Court in

24 denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
25 denies Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

2

1

A.

The Court Properly Found that the Meal Break Policy Documents Were Not
Authenticated

2
3

In denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the Court found that the documents

4 presented by Plaintiffs purportedly describing Defendant’s meal break policy were not
5 authenticated. Plaintiffs argue that the document was sufficiently authenticated.
6

“Authentication is a ‘condition precedent to admissibility,’ and this condition is satisfied

7 by ‘evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
8 claims.’” Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Fed. R.
9 Evid. 901(a)). “In a summary judgment motion, documents authenticated through personal
10 knowledge must be ‘attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56(e)
11 and the affiant must be a person through whom the exhibits could be admitted into evidence.’”
12 Id. (citing Canada v. Blain’s Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 1987)).
13

The documents at issue are entitled “Rest Break and Meal Periods and “Required Rest

14 Break and Meal Period Matrix” and were attached as Exhibits B and C to the Declaration of
15 Matthew T. Theriault in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Theriault Decl.”).
16 (See ECF No. 424.) Mr. Theriault’s declaration stated:
17
18
19
20
21

In response to Plaintiffs’ request for production, Taco Bell
produced, among other things, a copy of its “Rest Break and Meal
Periods” policy, authenticated by Taco Bell’s designees and its
counsel as Taco Bell’s meal period policy/practices, as described
above and during the class certification proceedings. A true and
correct copy of the “Rest Break and Meal Periods” policy is
attached hereto as Exhibit B. It states in relevant part “Meal
Periods > you are required to take a full 30-minute, uninterrupted,
meal period after 5 hours of work unless 6 hours completes your
work day.”

22
23 (Theriault Decl. ¶ 3.) There are several defects with Mr. Theriault’s attempt to authenticate the
24 documents in question.
25

Plaintiffs argue that the documents were properly authenticated because “Defendants’

26 already authenticated at least one of the meal period policy documents in their opposition to
27 Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.” Plaintiffs argue that the same documents were attached
28 to a declaration submitted by Defendants earlier in this action in an opposition to Plaintiff’s

3

1 motion for class certification. However, the documents do not appear to have been properly
2 authenticated by Defendants, as the documents were attached as exhibits to the declaration of
3 Tracey Kennedy and Ms. Kennedy did not establish a foundation establishing herself as a person
4 through whom the documents could be admitted into evidence. There is no indication that Ms.
5 Kennedy had personal knowledge of facts establishing the documents’ authenticity.
6

Furthermore, it remains unclear what these documents are (i.e., whether they represented

7 the “official” meal policy enforced by Defendant, or merely a draft document uncovered during
8 discovery), who received these documents (i.e., was the document distributed to all managers, or
9 was it buried in a file that never saw the light of day?), or whether the documents accurately
10 reflected the “official” meal policy (i.e., was the reference to meal breaks given after five hours
11 of work a typographical error that was contradicted by other written materials?). Plaintiffs, at a
12 minimum, have only established that the documents at issue are documents that were in
13 Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence of the significance of these
14 documents. As noted in the Court’s order, Plaintiffs never presented these meal break policy
15 documents to an appropriate witness and asked the witness to confirm that these documents
16 accurately reflect Defendant’s policy regarding the timing of meal breaks.

Accordingly,

17 Plaintiffs, at most, have established that some unidentified document in Defendant’s possession
18 indicates that the official policy may be to give employees meal breaks after five hours of work.
19

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted with

20 respect to the Court’s findings regarding the authenticity of the documents submitted by
21 Plaintiffs.
22
23
24

B.

The Court Properly Found that Summary Judgment was not Appropriate
With Respect to Liability

Plaintiffs argue that the Court improperly denied summary judgment with respect to

25 liability because liability can be premised upon a uniform policy. Plaintiffs misinterpret the
26 Court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment.
27

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs argue that the Court violated the “law of the case” doctrine

28 in its prior order by departing from a legal issue decided previously in this case. During class

4

1 certification proceedings, the Court acknowledged that, per Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior
2 Court, 54 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012), liability may be premised upon an official policy adopted by an
3 employer which violates California wage and hour laws. Nothing in the Court’s prior order was
4 inconsistent with this position. In the Court’s prior order, the Court noted that Plaintiffs must
5 demonstrate that at least some employees were actually denied timely meal breaks as a result of
6 the allegedly violative policy. For example, hypothetically, if an employee were to prove that an
7 employer adopted an official policy where meal breaks would not be given until after five hours
8 of work, but the employer’s time records showed that every shift worked by every employee was
9 less than four hours long, no liability would exist because no employee was denied a timely meal
10 break because no employee worked a shift long enough to trigger the legal obligation to provide
11 a meal break. Stated differently, no employee would have standing to sue because no employee
12 suffered any injury under this hypothetical scenario. Accordingly, in order to establish liability,
13 Plaintiffs must establish injury—i.e., an actual instance of an untimely meal break. Plaintiffs’
14 prior motion for summary judgment failed to establish liability in this manner.
15

More fundamentally, even if the Court were to look past the authentication issues and the

16 actual injury issues, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment failed because Plaintiffs failed to
17 demonstrate an absence of dispute regarding the material facts relating to Defendants’ meal
18 break policy. For reasons discussed in more detail in the Court’s contemporaneous order on
19 Plaintiffs’ second motion to dismiss, the evidentiary record includes conflicting evidence from
20 Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding whether it was, in fact, Defendants’ official, uniformly
21 applied policy to provide meal breaks after the fifth hour of work. Plaintiffs, at most, established
22 that there exists a document in Defendant’s possession that could be interpreted to say that meal
23 periods are given after five hours of work. Plaintiffs submitted little evidence that this document
24 accurately reflected Defendant’s official policy regarding the timing of meal breaks. Plaintiffs
25 submitted little evidence that this policy was uniformly enforced on all employees. Plaintiffs
26 submitted little to no evidence that any employee was given a late meal break because of this
27 policy.
28 / / /

5

Plaintiffs cite a number of cases that have held that class-wide liability may attach if an

1

2 employer adopts a uniform policy which violates a provision of wage and hour laws. While it is
3 true that class-wide liability may be based upon the adoption of a uniform policy, summary
4 judgment requires Plaintiffs to demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute that this uniform
5 policy existed and was uniformly applied against employees. The Court’s reading of the record
6 revealed substantial grounds for genuine dispute.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted with

7

8 respect to the Court’s findings regarding liability.
9

IV.

10

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that reconsideration of the Court’s order

11

12 denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is not warranted.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is

13

14 DENIED.
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated:

November 14, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6