Campanelli et al v. The Hershey Company

Filing 50

ORDER re Discovery Dispute Raised in Joint Letter Dated May 15, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil on 5/18/2009. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE CAMPANELLI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant. /

No. C 08-01862 WDB ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RAISED IN JOINT LETTER DATED MAY 15, 2009

The Court is most pleased that the parties to this action, through counsel, have worked so constructively and conscientiously to develop a sensible plan to position this matter for mediation. The Court extends its gratitude to counsel for working so professionally together and for narrowing their disputes to the single matter addressed in the next paragraph. Having considered the parties' positions as described in counsels' letter of May 15, 2009, and having taken into account the larger context in which the planned discovery is taking place, the Court hereby RULES that Hershey need not produce a 30(b)(6) deponent to testify about "why Hershey believes its RSRs are properly classified as exempt" -- as long as Hershey sets forth in a detailed answer to an interrogatory both the legal reasoning and the assumptions about the facts that inform Hershey's contention that the classification is appropriate. For this purpose, Hershey's description of its "assumptions about the facts" that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

underlie its contention must set forth the approximate percentages of their time Hershey's RSRs are presumed to commit to each of the major categories of tasks their jobs involve. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2009 WAYNE D. BRAZIL United States Magistrate Judge

G:\WDBLC1\1--WDB PENDING CONSENT CASES\Campanelli v Hershey\order re 30b6 deposition.wpd 2