Runnings v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

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

MIGUEL A. CRUZ, and JOHN D. HANSEN,) individually and on behalf of all ) ) others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ___________________________________) ) ROBERT RUNNINGS, individually, and ) on behalf of all others similarly ) ) situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

Case Nos. 07-2050 SC 07-4012 SC ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF ROBERT RUNNINGS' OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1

I.

INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Robert

Runnings' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Special Interrogatory No. 1 ("Objections").

Docket No. 84.

For

the following reasons, Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED.

II.

DISCUSSION In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs allege they were

improperly classified as exempt managers and denied wages for overtime. On October 10, 2008, a hearing was held before the

Honorable Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero regarding a motion to compel a response to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatory No. 1. Docket No. 78. See

Special Interrogatory No. 1 states: "Identify each Bissen Decl., Docket No. 85, Ex. D at 2.

United States District Court

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

and every class member."

Judge Spero issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Special Interrogatory No. 1, which stated: "Defendant shall provide to plaintiffs the contact information requested, other than home telephone numbers, for 100 of the putative class members in this case." 79. Docket No.

In the Objections filed with this Court, Plaintiffs assert

that Judge Spero erred in excluding the home telephone numbers of the putative class members from the contact information Defendant is required to produce. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when a party objects to a non-dispositive matter decided by a magistrate judge, the "district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." /// /// 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

After reading and considering Plaintiff's Objections and the applicable caselaw, the Court finds that Judge Spero's Order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Objections are therefore OVERRULED. Plaintiff's

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3