Artis v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc. et al
Filing
76
DISCOVERY ORDER re Joint Letter 73 . Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/8/2011. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
Northern District of California
6
7
HOLLY ARTIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
No. C 10-05289 WHA (MEJ)
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
[Docket No. 73]
9
JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES, INC. et al.,
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On October 28, 2011, the parties filed a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute concerning
13 No. 29 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, wherein Plaintiff sought:
14 “[a]ny DOCUMENTS reflecting, listing, or RELATING TO annual incumbency, turnover,
15 compensation, benefit and pay rates, and vacancy fill rates by gender for sales, customer service, and
16 shipping and receiving positions, nationally and/or in each division and region.” Letter, Dkt. No. 73.
17 Defendants object to production of any discovery on the incumbency, turnover, compensation or
18 benefit and pay rates for JDL. Plaintiffs now seek to compel production of all documents and
19 electronic data relating to these categories.
20
In support of their request to compel production, Plaintiffs contend that the information
21 regarding compensation, turnover, and benefit and pay rates is relevant to the computation of
22 damages for Plaintiffs and the putative class. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that discovery
23 regarding gender incumbency in class positions is relevant to show: (1) an imbalance in the number
24 of females in class positions; and (2) that potential female applicants are deterred from applying by
25 Deere’s practices. Id.
26
Defendants, however, maintain that the discovery is irrelevant to any class certification issues
27 that are now before the Court. Id. With respect to Plaintiffs’ position that the discovery is relevant to
28 damages, Defendants counter that “while the method of calculating class member damages may be
1 relevant to the appropriateness of class certification, the specific damages awards to which each
2 putative class member would argue she is entitled have no bearing on whether class certification is
3 appropriate.” Id. at 3. As to information relating to incumbency, Defendants argue that such
4 information goes to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim, not to any of the certification issues, and in any
5 event, is beyond of the scope of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, which alleges claims on behalf of
6 external applicants. Id. Further, Defendants argue that because the information Plaintiffs seek
7 implicates the privacy rights of third-parties, Plaintiffs must show that there is a compelling public
8 need for such discovery. Id. at 4. Finally, Defendants contend that RFP No. 29 does not seek
9 production of electronic data. Id.
10
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ arguments and agrees with Defendants that
12 Moreover, Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants’ objection on the ground of privacy.
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the discovery sought is relevant to class certification.
13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel WITHOUT PREJUDICE. After the
14 Court issues its order on Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, Plaintiffs may renew their motion to
15 compel production of discovery relating to incumbency, turnover, benefits, and pay rates, if
16 appropriate. The undersigned further advises Defendants that because they are on notice that
17 Plaintiffs will be seeking such information should the class claims be certified, Defendants will be
18 expected to expeditiously produce such discovery – including responsive electronic data – should the
19 Court grant Plaintiffs’ renewed motion.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 Dated: November 8, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?