Alvarez et al v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Filing 87

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 84 Statement. The telephone conference set for March 20, 2015 to discuss the dispute is VACATED. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/19/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MERCEDES ALVAREZ, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00574-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

9
10

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Re: Dkt. No. 84

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties have submitted a joint discovery dispute regarding defendant’s requests for

14

production to opt-in plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 84. The parties dispute whether defendants are entitled to

15

production of documents from all opt-in plaintiffs (defendant’s position) or production of

16

documents from a sampling of opt-in plaintiffs (plaintiffs’ position). I have reviewed the dispute.

17

The telephone conference set for March 20, 2015 to discuss the dispute is VACATED.

18

There are 311 opt-in plaintiffs. Plaintiffs offered to produce documents for five percent of

19

the opt-in plaintiffs, and indicated their openness to produce documents from a larger

20

representative sampling if defendant believed it necessary. Defendant has not demonstrated why it

21

needs discovery from all of the opt-in plaintiffs. Discovery from 10% of the opt-in plaintiffs is

22

sufficient to allow defendants to test plaintiffs’ assertion that they are similarly situated, which is

23

the reason defendant provides for the discovery at issue.

24

Accordingly, within 14 days, defendant shall select 10% of the opt-in plaintiffs who shall

25

respond to the requests for production at issue. Within 30 days of that selection, those opt-in

26

plaintiffs shall respond to the requests for production. Plaintiffs have apparently already

27

responded to written discovery on behalf of two opt-in plaintiffs (and eight named plaintiffs). The

28

10% of opt-in plaintiffs includes the two for which plaintiffs have also responded. If there are 311

1

opt-in plaintiffs, defendant is entitled to documents from 31 opt-in plaintiffs. Since defendant

2

already received documents from two opt-in plaintiffs, 29 remain. If defendant determines that

3

discovery from 10% of the opt-in plaintiffs proves insufficient, and the parties cannot agree on

4

production from additional opt-in plaintiffs, the parties shall submit a joint statement to the Court

5

(subject to the rules governing joint discovery letters) stating their positions.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2