Hairabedian et al v. Toys "R" Us - Delaware, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE signed by William H Orrick, III, on 6/20/2017 ORDERING defendant to respond to the request using employee identification numbers with (1) meal and rest break data, and (2) point of sale data, for the putative class during the class period, for 13 representative stores, including the stores where plaintiffs worked. The information should be produced within thirty days pursuant to the 14 Protective Order. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

DARON HAIRABEDIAN and IVAN
HERNANDEZ, and on behalf of themselves
and the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

9

Case No. 2:16-cv-2326 (WHO)
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 15

v.
10

United States District Court
Eastern District of California

11
12

TOYS ‘R’ US – DELAWARE, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, CAROL MILLER,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

13
14

In accordance with my Standing Order, the parties have submitted a joint statement

15

regarding a discovery dispute concerning plaintiffs’ request for production No. 11. Dkt. No. 15.

16

Defendant responded to plaintiffs’ initial request with numerous objections, the parties met and

17

conferred, and plaintiffs narrowed the scope of their original request to the following: “(1) all meal

18

and rest break data for the putative class, from September 3, 2014 to the present and (2) all Point

19

of Sale (POS) data for the putative class, from September 3, 2014 to the present.” Id. at 2.

20

Defendant now contends that this narrower request constitutes a new request, which should be

21

properly served under FRCP 34. It also insists that this new request remains overbroad and

22

implicates privacy concerns. Id. at 3–4.

23

Defendant’s procedural objection is meritless. Defendant clearly understands the

24

information plaintiffs seek. The real dispute is over the appropriate scope of the revised request.

25

Because of the potential burden of providing the requested data for all of defendant’s

26

approximately 125 stores in California, I will require defendant to provide it for 13 stores that are

27

representative in terms of geography and numbers of employees, including the stores at which the

28

1

named plaintiffs’ worked. The parties should meet and confer to agree on which stores’ data are

2

included in the response. No employee’s privacy concerns are implicated by this request, which

3

only seeks employee identification numbers and not names for the data provided.
Accordingly, defendant is ordered to respond to the request using employee identification

4
5

numbers with (1) meal and rest break data, 1 and (2) point of sale data, for the putative class during

6

the class period, for 13 representative stores, including the stores where plaintiffs worked.

7

The information should be produced within thirty days pursuant to the Protective Order. Dkt. No.

8

14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: June 20, 2017
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Eastern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If none exists, simply state so in the response.
2