Alvarez et al v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Filing 97

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES REGARDING DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND DEFENDANT'S DOCUMENT PRODUCTION re: 96 Discovery Letter Brief and 94 Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/12/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MERCEDES ALVAREZ, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00574-WHO

Plaintiffs,
7
v.
8
9

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant.

10
11

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES
REGARDING DEPOSITION OF
DEFENDANT’S CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND
DEFENDANT’S DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 95 and 96
12
13
The parties have submitted various discovery disputes for my determination. Dkt. Nos.
14
94-96. Having reviewed their joint and individual statements, I ORDER that:
15

1. Plaintiffs’ request to depose Deborah Aldredge, defendant’s Chief Administrative

16
Officer, is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs have not explained why a 30(b)(6)
17
deposition will not be sufficient to address the relevant state-wide issues. Plaintiffs
18
identify one alleged complaint that Ms. Aldredge may have handled, but a deposition
19
by written question could address that matter and determine whether she performed her
20
own investigation of systemic off-the-clock work. If she did, her deposition may well
21
be appropriate. Plaintiffs also alleged that they have not received complaints of off22
the-clock work and missed meal and rest breaks and that Ms. Aldredge may have
23
handled some of those complaints. Defendant represents that those complaints have
24
now been produced. If plaintiffs can demonstrate why a deposition of Ms. Aldredge is
25
necessary after completing the type of discovery referred to above, they should renew
26
this request.
27
2. Plaintiffs ask for searches to be run on the emails and files of a random sample of class
28

1

members’ supervisors and managers. Defendant asserts that no discovery request has

2

been received with that request. It is unclear to me why this material is being sought,

3

procedurally and substantively, and the request is DENIED without prejudice to a

4

showing of materiality and necessity.

5

3. Defendant represents that all other outstanding discovery issues have been resolved. It

6

is unclear whether defendant is agreeing to produce the requested documents or has

7

already done so. I ORDER that if defendant has not actually produced the documents

8

that had been in dispute, it should do so within seven days or provide plaintiffs with a

9

schedule detailing when the documents will be produced. Said schedule shall

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

demonstrate that the defendant has prioritized the production.
4. If plaintiffs dispute defendant’s representation regarding the resolution of these

12

discovery issues, the parties shall send me a joint letter outlining their disagreement(s)

13

on or before May 26, 2015. With respect to items one and two above, plaintiffs may

14

renew their requests at any time they have the factual basis to do so.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2