Arredondo, et al. vs. Delano Farms Company, et al.

Filing 421

ORDER on 414 Delano Farms Company's Motion Regarding Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/22/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

1:09-cv-01247 MJS HC
SABAS ARREDONDO et al.,

13
14

v.

15

ORDER ON DELANO FARMS COMPANY’S
Plaintiffs, MOTION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
DISCOVERY RESPONSES

DELANO FARMS CO., et al.,

(Doc. 414)
Defendants.

16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court on Delano Farms Company’s Motion

19

Regarding Plaintiffs’ Discovery Responses. (ECF No. 414.) The Court, having

20

considered Delano Farms’ motion and related materials submitted by the parties (ECF

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Nos. 415-17, 420), hereby GRANTS the motion to the extent and in the manner set forth
below.
IT IS ORDERED that not later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, March 25, 2016, Plaintiffs
shall ensure that, except for documents withheld as privileged and identified as such in a
verified privilege log, all of the following documents and information have been produced
to Defendant Delano Farms and, further, Plaintiffs shall confirm in writing and under oath
that all have been produced to Defendant:

28
1

1

1.

All work product, documents, data, calculations, and information collected,

2

created, or considered by Dr. Roberts in forming his opinions as of February 22,

3

2016, to include, but not necessarily be limited to:
All of Dr. Roberts’ statistical survey results and damage

4

a.

5

calculations, including:

6

1)

Writings showing how he arrived at and applied his

7

assumptions regarding “pre-harvest” and “harvest” work.

8

2)

9

calculations including class-wide penalties and pre- shift damages.

Identification of work weeks included for purposes of damage

10

3)

Calculations regarding averages, such as the average

11

number of days per week and average minutes worked, for each his

12

conclusions about pre- shift work damages.

13

4)

Calculations regarding margins of error.

14

5)

Analysis made to match the survey pool with payroll data on

15

the 305 individuals for whom the survey was completed, the 43 who

16

refused, the 119 not included, and for those with multiple potential

17

matches in the payroll records and to include information disclosing

18

which payroll data he decided to rely upon and why.

19

6)

20

Roberts in a form that enables Defendant to duplicate the

21

simulations.

MonteCarlo simulations actually run by and relied upon by Dr.

All of Dr. Roberts’ notes and communication including those setting

22

b.

23

forth his plans, instructions, and progress for the design, implementation,

24

and analysis of information to be collected from the focus groups, mail

25

survey, and in-person survey and including notes or copies of

26

communications with others regarding his work on this project.

27
28
2

All California Survey Research Services (“CSRS”) documents relating to

1

2.

2

this litigation and CSRS’s work in connection with it, specifically identifying all

3

communications and other documents to and from CSRS and all other documents

4

created by CSRS in connection with this litigation, to include but not necessarily

5

be limited to:

6

a.

Attachments to emails produced or to be produced in accordance

7

with this Order.

8

b.

9

records of its attempts to validate survey responses (the “Validation Study”)

10

from a subset of respondents by telephone; to the extent necessary,

11

Plaintiff’s response shall include arranging a reasonable, mutually

12

agreeable, time for Defendant to inspect and image the information at

13

CSRS’s offices.

14

c.

15

URL links and web-based content referenced in CSRS’s work.

16

d.

17

survey questions.

18

e.

Regular progress reports that CSRS agreed to email Dr. Roberts.

19

f.

Information

20

approximate 10,744 individuals in the Delano Farms “study” was

21

determined.

22

g.

23

complete the survey.

24

h.

25

place, parties to, and contents of communications between and among

26

CSRS, Dr. Roberts, and BMR.

Access to inaccessible documents produced such as CSRS’s

Access, in the same manner accessed by CSRS, to now disabled

Training materials regarding the door-to-door procedures and

reflecting how the

rate of

response

from

the

Information provided by individuals who reportedly refused to

Any and all notes, memoranda, recordings, etc. reflecting the time,

27
28
3

All Bakersfield Market Research (“BMR”) documents relating to this

1

3.

2

litigation and BMR’s work in connection with it, specifically identifying all

3

communications and other documents to and from BMR and all other documents

4

created by BMR in connection with this litigation, to include but not necessarily be

5

limited to:

6

a.

Internal communications.

7

b.

Field notes of each individual who conducted in-person interviews.

8

c.

Training instructions to include interview instructions, record-keeping

9

protocols, and hand-written notes regarding the survey process.
Internal payment records reflecting BMR’s compensation of

its

10

d.

11

interviewers

12

reimbursements.

13

e.

14

who was not and who actually was interviewed and who was not and why.

15

f.

16

with this Order.

including

time

records

and

travel

and

other

cost

Documents reflecting who was to be solicited for an interview and

Attachments to emails produced or to be produced in accordance

17

4.

Verification under oath that, except as described in a privilege log or proper

18

objection compliant with applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil

19

Procedure, all documents described above and all other documents otherwise

20

requested through discovery in this case have been produced.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 22, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4