Salazar et al v. McDonald's Corp. et al

Filing 76

Discovery Order re: 75 Discovery Letter Brief, 72 Joint Discovery Letter. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/25/2016. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02096-RS (MEJ)

Plaintiffs,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 75

9
10

MCDONALD‟S CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

INTRODUCTION

14

This is a wage and hour putative class action brought on behalf of current and former

15

McDonald‟s restaurant crew members at eight Bay Area restaurants that are or were franchised to

16

Defendants Bobby O. Haynes Sr. and Carole R. Haynes Family Ltd. Partnership (“Haynes”). First

17

Am. Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 34. Pending before the Court is a discovery dispute concerning

18

various requests for documents (“RFPs”) and special interrogatories Plaintiffs propounded on

19

Haynes. Joint Letter (“Jt. Ltr.”), Dkt. No. 72. Having considered the parties‟ positions, relevant

20

legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court issues the following order.

21

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs sued both McDonald‟s and Haynes contending they are joint employers of

23

putative class members; McDonald‟s plans to challenge that assertion, and the presiding judge, the

24

Honorable Richard Seeborg, has set a hearing date on the joint employer issue and a discovery

25

cut-off date related to that issue. See Scheduling Order at 1, Dkt. No. 68 (“The parties will engage

26

in discovery related to the anticipated joint employer summary judgment motion to be filed by the

27

McDonald‟s Defendants through February 26, 2016.”). Broader discovery remains open after

28

February 26, 2016. Id. (“Discovery related to other issues, including class certification and merits

1

issues, may take place before and after February 26, 2016.”). McDonald‟s motion for summary

2

judgment on the joint employer issue is currently due on March 7, 2016, and Plaintiffs‟ motion for

3

class certification is currently due June 24, 2016. Dkt. No. 68.
On February 12, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter wherein Plaintiffs assert

5

Haynes has failed to respond to multiple RFPs and interrogatories Plaintiffs need to prepare for

6

summary judgment and class certification. Jt. Ltr. at 1-4. For its part, Haynes proposes waiting to

7

complete much of this discovery until after the depositions of the Haynes Defendants and Haynes‟

8

employees and further objects to the costs of completing discovery for electronically stored

9

information (“ESI”). Id. at 5-6. After reviewing the letter, the Court ordered the parties to

10

conduct a further in-person meet and confer, which took place on February 17, 2016 in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

undersigned‟s chambers; the parties resolved several of their disputes and submitted a revised

12

version of their discovery letter. Suppl. Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 75.

13

In their letter, the parties explain they have tentatively agreed to extend the deadlines for

14

these motions by one month and “assume the current discovery and motions deadlines will be

15

postponed pursuant to agreement of the parties and the Court.” Id. at 1. The parties also came to

16

various agreements as memorialized in their Supplemental Joint Discovery Letter, but two

17

disputes remain: (1) the timing of Haynes‟ production of certain ESI; and (2) whether Plaintiffs

18

may obtain the names and contact information of prospective class members. Id. at 1-2.

19

As to the first dispute, Haynes has collected ESI from Bobby Haynes, Sr., Bobby Haynes,

20

Jr., Michele Haynes Watts, and store managers for the eight restaurants in the proposed class. The

21

parties have agreed that Haynes will search the ESI it has collected from Bobby Haynes Jr. as

22

follows and inform Plaintiffs of the number of hits for each search term listed in (a) below and

23

each individual listed in (b) below:

24

(a) Search emails between Bobby Haynes, Jr. and Bobby Haynes, Sr., Michele Haynes

25

Watts, any store manager of the eight stores in the proposed class, Steven Dubois, or Mohammed

26

Moalikyar for the following terms:

27
28

a. ISP
b. “National

Franchising” or NFS
c. Polic
2

d. Manual
e. Handbook

1
2
3

f. Guide
g. Training
h. Punch
i. Timekeeping
j. Labor
k. PLE

l. Violation
m. Break
n. “Meal period”
o. Overtime
p. Staffing
q. ROIP

r. SOAR
s. SOR
t. Eligib
u. “Operations review”
v. “Business review”
w. SSP

4
5

(b) Search emails between Bobby Haynes, Jr. and each of the following individuals: Starla

6

Spencer, Jennie Watt, Erick Deluna, Dan Gehret, Michelle Wherry, Mwaffak Kanjee, Donna

7

Mohamed, and Gino Potesta. Id. at 1-2.

8
9

The parties will then meet and confer regarding search terms to use for production of
documents from Bobby Haynes, Jr., and search terms to use for production of documents from
Bobby Haynes, Sr., Michele Haynes Watts, and each of the managers of the eight stores during the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proposed class period. The parties dispute the timing of these steps.

12
13

LEGAL STANDARD
Following the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in December

14

2015, Rule 26 now provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged

15

matter that is relevant to any party‟s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]”

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors that must be considered in weighing proportionality include “the

17

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties‟ relative

18

access to relevant information, the parties‟ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving

19

the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

20

benefit.” Id. Discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id.

21

The Advisory Committee Notes explain that “[r]estoring the proportionality calculation to

22

Rule 26(b)(1) . . . does not place on the party seeking discovery the burden of addressing all

23

proportionality considerations. Nor is the change intended to permit the opposing party to refuse

24

discovery simply by making a boilerplate objection that it is not proportional.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26

25

advisory committee notes (2015 amendments). Rather, the “[t]he parties and the court have a

26

collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving

27

discovery disputes.” Id. Under the Court‟s reading, the revised rule places a shared responsibility

28

on all the parties to consider the factors bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery
3

1

requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts. See id.;

2

also compare Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2016 WL 427369, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016)

3

(citing advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a “collective responsibility” to

4

consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . . tailor their efforts to the needs of

5

th[e] case”) with Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co, Inc., 2016 WL 146574, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan.

6

13, 2016) (holding that “a party seeking discovery of relevant, non-privileged information must

7

show, before anything else, that the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case.”).
Despite the recent amendments, Rule 26(c) continues to “confer[] broad discretion on the

8
9

trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is
required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). “The court may, for good

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

12

undue burden or expense,” including by (1) prohibiting disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning

13

disclosure or discovery on specified terms; (3) preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4)

14

limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
DISCUSSION

15
16
17

A.

ESI Discovery
The parties‟ timing dispute for the production of ESI appears to come down to whether

18

they should meet and confer on the search results for the “hits” of the terms listed above before or

19

after Haynes‟ depositions. Plaintiffs request an order setting a deadline of February 29, 2016 for

20

Haynes to provide the number of “hits” described above and a deadline of March 2, 2016 for the

21

parties to meet and confer regarding any narrowing of the search times as to the search terms for

22

all of the proposed custodians. Suppl. Jt. Ltr. at 2. The parties note they have tentatively

23

scheduled Mr. Haynes, Jr.‟s deposition for March 14 and Ms. Haynes Watts‟ deposition for March

24

29. Id. Plaintiffs have also requested available dates for Mr. Haynes, Sr.‟s deposition. Id.

25

Plaintiffs contend they need ESI discovery from these custodians before their depositions in order

26

to effectively depose them and because McDonald‟s has informed them that it “intends to object to

27

the Haynes‟ depositions being held open to allow for later production of ESI.” Id. In their initial

28

letter, Plaintiffs noted that in their counsel‟s experience in another similar case against
4

1

McDonald‟s and another franchisee, the franchisee often has information and documents not

2

otherwise available from McDonalds. Jt. Ltr. at 4. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs request

3

Haynes be required to produce ESI from Bobby Haynes, Jr. no later than March 10, 2016; ESI

4

from Michele Haynes Watts‟ no later than March 24, 2016; and that the remaining ESI be

5

produced no later than April 14, 2016. Suppl. Jt. Ltr. at 2. As a final note, Plaintiffs state that,

6

“[i]f, after conducting the agreed-upon searches, [] Haynes can demonstrate that the burden of

7

complying with its discovery obligations would be disproportionate, plaintiffs remain willing to

8

meet and confer regarding the costs.” Id. at 3.
Haynes objects to Plaintiffs‟ timing proposal on the grounds of proportionality and cost.

10

Id. at 3. Haynes “proposes that the parties meet and confer on the search results coinciding with

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Bobby Haynes Jr.‟s data and fine tune said searches for Mr. Haynes Jr. and any additional

12

custodians after Defendant Haynes‟ depositions are completed.” Id. Haynes explains that

13

“Plaintiffs have been provided with a bevy of documents from co-defendant McDonald‟s which

14

entail communication between McDonald‟s and the various custodians requested by

15

Plaintiffs,” and additionally until Haynes completes the initial ESI searches based on the terms

16

above “the parties will not know the amount of data that is at issue (and which will require

17

review)[.]” Id. It is “the potential cost of reviewing these documents that poses the greatest fiscal

18

hardship for Defendant Haynes.” Id. Thus, Haynes requests the discussion about additional

19

searches and production of documents be postponed until after April 10. Id. Haynes explains that

20

“[i]there are additional areas that require subsequent questioning, Plaintiffs may ask those

21

questions of Defendant Haynes at a later date.” Id.

22

Having considered the parties‟ positions, the Court finds little weight in Haynes‟ argument

23

to postpone discussion of the search terms and related production of documents. Haynes‟ primary

24

argument is about the costs of conducting this discovery, but the suggestion that Plaintiffs should

25

just re-depose Haynes and other potentially key witnesses if Plaintiffs are not adequately prepared

26

during the first depositions is not consistent with Haynes‟ cost argument. Rather, this suggestion

27

risks the potential for additional significant costs and unnecessary delays, and the benefit of

28

delaying is unclear. The truth is that even with the parties‟ potential extension of the motion
5

1

deadlines by one month, the time for discovery is running out, and the need for discovery is

2

becoming more pressing. While proposing a second deposition may have made sense months ago,

3

the needs of the case at this point require the parties to make more progress with discovery and to

4

not unduly delay their ability to resolve their claims.

5

Indeed, Haynes has not challenged the relevance of the information Plaintiffs seek, only

6

the costs of producing such information and theoretically the chance that the information Plaintiffs

7

seek will not be particularly valuable. Although Haynes argues McDonald‟s may have already

8

produced key information, Plaintiffs have explained that their counsel‟s experience in a similar

9

case is that franchisees often have more information and documents unavailable to McDonald‟s.
And regardless of Plaintiffs‟ counsel‟s experience, Haynes has not articulated why Plaintiffs‟

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

should be limited to McDonald‟s evidence, particularly as the information Plaintiffs seek is not

12

solely related to the joint-employer issue but goes to other issues as well. The Court appreciates

13

that discovery is often costly, but Haynes has not put forward an adequate argument about why

14

discovery should be delayed, and even seems to arbitrarily risk the increase of discovery costs

15

overall. See Goes Int’l, 2016 WL 427369, at *4 (“[A]lthough it is a concern, the defendant‟s

16

financial wherewithal is not decisive.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) advisory comm. notes (2015

17

amendments) (“[C]onsideration of the parties‟ resources does not foreclose discovery requests

18

addressed to an impecunious party, nor justify unlimited discovery requests addressed to a wealthy

19

party.”). Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that to be able to adequately prepare for the

20

Haynes Defendants‟ depositions, they should have the documents to be able to fully question those

21

witnesses and potentially pursue other lines of inquiry, such as authenticating documents, etc.

22

Accordingly, the Court shall adopt Plaintiffs‟ proposed discovery schedule and ORDERS

23

that by February 29, 2016, Haynes shall provide the number of “hits” described above and by

24

March 2, 2016, the parties shall meet and confer regarding any narrowing of the search times as to

25

the search terms for all of the proposed custodians. Suppl. Jt. Ltr. at 2. Given the potential

26

expense for Haynes, the Court encourages Plaintiffs to carefully and precisely delineate these

27

search times and if possible, narrow or even more highly specify search terms within the broader

28

search categories. The Court ORDERS Haynes to produce (1) ESI from Bobby Haynes, Jr. by no
6

1

later than March 10, 2016, (2) ESI from Michele Haynes Watts by no later than March 24, 2016,

2

and (3) the remaining ESI by no later than April 14, 2016.

3

B.

4

Prospective Class Member Data
Finally, Plaintiffs request that Haynes produce “Prospective class members‟ names and

5

contact information, job classifications, and dates of employment.” Jt. Ltr. at 3; Suppl. Jt. Ltr. at

6

2. Specifically, Plaintiffs requested Haynes produce documents that (1) identify the names,

7

employee ID numbers, last known personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of

8

prospective class members (Jt. Ltr., Ex. B, RFP No. 13); (2) identify prospective class members‟

9

dates of employment, restaurant locations worked, and job titles during that time (id., RFP No.
14); and (3) “[a]ll formal job descriptions or policy or guidance DOCUMENTS describing,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

identifying, or listing the job titles, responsibilities, qualifications, and duties of all non-exempt,

12

hourly paid employees at COVERED RESTAURANTS for the CLASS PERIOD” (id., RFP No.

13

15). See Jt. Ltr. at 3 (citing Ex. B, Responses to RFP Nos. 13-15 and Interrogatory No. 12).

14

In the Joint Letters, Haynes does not make specific arguments about why they refuse to

15

provide this information. In the Supplemental Letter, the parties state Haynes opposes production

16

of prospective class member data “on legal grounds” but do not provide those specific grounds.

17

See Suppl. Jt. Ltr. at 1. As best the Court can glean from Haynes‟ arguments, the franchise

18

believes McDonald‟s may have already provided this information. See Jt. Ltr. at 4 (“Plaintiffs are

19

requesting a plethora of information and documents that duplicate requests propounded on co-

20

defendant McDonald‟s Corp.”). But Plaintiffs assert that “the McDonald‟s corporate defendants

21

have not provided and claim not to have such prospective class member information. Id. at 3. In

22

their discovery responses, Haynes generally asserts that such data merits privacy protections and is

23

premature prior to class certification. Jt. Ltr., Ex. B, Responses to RFPs 13-15. Plaintiffs,

24

however, contend that courts regularly order the production of prospective class members‟

25

information so long as that data is subject to a protective order to safeguard those prospective class

26

members‟ privacy and assert that “[t]he Protective Order in this case is sufficient to ameliorate any

27

prospective class member privacy concerns.” Id. (citing Protective Order, Dkt. No. 40).

28

“[N]umerous courts in the Northern District of California have allowed pre-certification
7

1

discovery of putative class members‟ confidential information subject to a protective order,

2

without requiring prior notice to the putative class members.” Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,

3

2013 WL 3215186, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) (collecting cases, including several authored

4

by the undersigned). Indeed, as this Court has previously noted, “[t]he disclosure of names,

5

addresses, and telephone numbers is a common practice in the class action context.” Artis v.

6

Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

7

Haynes has raised no arguments about why such information should not be produced in
this case, and from the Court‟s review of Plaintiffs‟ class claims in the First Amended Complaint

9

as well as the parties‟ Protective Order, this information is properly discoverable. See McCowen

10

v. Trimac Transp. Servs. (W.), Inc., 2015 WL 5184473, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2015) (“Prior to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

class certification under Rule 23, discovery lies entirely within the discretion of the Court.” (citing

12

Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009)); see also Brawner v.

13

Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 WL 6845504, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) (“In its exercise of that

14

discretion, the court may require the plaintiff either to make a prima facie showing that the Rule

15

23 class-action requirements are satisfied, or to show „that discovery is likely to produce

16

substantiation of the class allegations.‟” (quoting Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th

17

Cir. 1985)). The discovery Plaintiffs seek is likely to produce information to help determine

18

whether a class or subclasses exist and to otherwise support or substantiate Plaintiffs‟ class claims.

19

See McCowen, 2015 WL 5184473, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2015) (“It is an abuse of discretion to

20

deny discovery where it is necessary to determine the existence of a class or subclass.” (citing

21

Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977)); see also Putnam v. Eli Lilly

22

& Co., 508 F. Supp. 2d 812, 813 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (permitting the pre-class certification discovery

23

to determine the location of potential class members, the dates of employment, and differences in

24

job duties and compensation).

25

Furthermore, the information sought, while certainly requiring privacy protections, can be

26

sufficiently safeguarded under the parties‟ Protective Order by marking the documents and data

27

produced “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS‟ EYES ONLY.” See Protective Order

28

2.3, 7.3. See Currie-White v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2010 WL 1526314, at *4 (N.D. Cal. April 15,
8

1

2010) (holding that a protective order is sufficient to address the privacy issues regarding

2

employer‟s disclosure of employees‟ contact information in pre-certification discovery); see also

3

Artis, 276 F.R.D. at 353 (recognizing that more stringent protection measures may be necessitated

4

where more intimate privacy interests are at stake, “such as compelled disclosure of medical

5

records and personal histories.”). That said, courts in this district have required that in contacting

6

class members, Plaintiffs‟ counsel is limited by the following requirements: (1) counsel must

7

inform each potential class member that he or she has a right not to talk to counsel and that, if he

8

or she elects not to talk to counsel, Plaintiffs‟ counsel will terminate the contact and not contact

9

that individual again; (2) during the initial communication, Plaintiffs‟ counsel must inform
potential class members that the undersigned compelled Haynes to disclose their contact

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

information and that the communication is highly confidential; and (3) any communications to

12

potential class members must be fair and accurate, and must not be misleading, intimidating, or

13

coercive. See Brawner, 2014 WL 6845504, at *4. These requirements strike the Court as a fair

14

and effective way to protect the privacy interests of the prospective class members.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Haynes to produce complete responses to RPD Nos. 13-

15
16

15 and Interrogatory No. 12 by May 1, 2016 in compliance with this Order (including the three

17

requirements above) and the Protective Order. The postponed deadline for this production should

18

assist Haynes with being able to comply with their other discovery obligations without undue

19

timing burdens.

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
9

CONCLUSION

1
2

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court ORDERS as follows:

3

(1) By February 29, 2016, Haynes shall provide the number of “hits” described above and

4

by March 2, 2016, the parties shall meet and confer regarding any narrowing of the

5

search times as to the search terms for all of the proposed custodians.

6

(2) Additionally, Haynes shall produce the ESI described in this Order as follows: (1) from

7

Bobby Haynes, Jr. by no later than March 10, 2016, (2) from Michele Haynes Watts‟

8

by no later than March 24, 2016, and (3) the remaining ESI by no later than April 14,

9

2016.
(3) Haynes shall also produce complete responses to RPD Nos. 13-15 and Interrogatory

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

No. 12 by May 1, 2016 in compliance with this Order and the Protective Order.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: February 25, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10