Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
Filing
39
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 36 , 37 Discovery Letter Briefs. Plaintiff's requests to compel supplemental responses is denied. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
STARVONA HARRIS,
Case No. 15-cv-00657-HSG (KAW)
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER REGARDING 9/30/15 JOINT
LETTERS PERTAINING TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES
v.
9
10
BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
Defendant.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 36 & 37
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On September 30, 2015, the parties filed separate joint letters in which Plaintiff seeks to
14
compel supplemental discovery responses pertaining to Best Buy’s “Points Rcvd GU” and
15
“Merchandise Rcvd” notations on Plaintiff’s wage statements. (9/30/15 Joint Letter regarding Req.
16
for Produc. of Docs., “Joint Letter #1,” Dkt. No. 36 at 1, 6; 9/30/15 Joint Letter regarding Special
17
Interrog., “Joint Letter #2,” Dkt. No. 37 at 1, 5.)
18
Upon review of the joint letters, the Court deems these matters suitable for disposition
19
without oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiff’s requests to compel
20
supplemental responses to the requests for production of documents and special interrogatories.
21
22
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff Starvona Harris filed a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
23
action and California class action lawsuit against her former employer Best Buy Stores, L.P. for
24
violations of wage and hour laws. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she and other non-exempt
25
employees “were paid an hourly rate of pay for the work performed, along with a nondiscretionary
26
bonus,” which should have been included in determining the regular rate of pay for overtime
27
purposes, but was not. (First Am. Compl., “FAC,” Dkt. No. 12 ¶ 17.)
28
On August 19, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, the hearing on
1
which was continued by the district court to December 3, 2015. (See Dkt. Nos. 22 & 27.)
On September 30, 2015, the parties filed two related joint letters in which Plaintiff seeks to
2
3
compel discovery pertaining to the “Points Rcvd GU” and “Merchandise Rcvd” notations on
4
Plaintiff’s wage statements.
5
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has
6
7
the right to the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
8
defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
9
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
10
III.
Plaintiff seeks supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5-6, and Request for
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
DISCUSSION
Production Nos. 10-11.
“Points Rcvd GU” Notation
13
A.
14
Interrogatory No. 5 and Request for Production No. 10 seek information concerning the
15
“Points Rcvd GU” notation on Plaintiff’s wage statements. (Joint Letter #1 at 1-2; Joint Letter #2
16
at 1-2.)1 According to Best Buy, the Points Program allowed employees to receive points from
17
their supervisors in recognition of providing good customer service, which could be used for
18
merchandise and gift cards. (Joint Letter #1 at 2-3.)
Plaintiff contends this information regarding the Points Program is relevant, “along with
19
20
information relating to other compensation that should have been used to calculate overtime on the
21
monthly bonus and other overtime earned by Plaintiff.” (Joint Letter #1 at 3.)
In opposition, Defendant contends that information pertaining to the Points Program is
22
23
irrelevant, because Plaintiff’s allegations are limited to the non-discretionary bonus, of which Best
24
Buy’s “short-term incentive (“STI”) plan was the only bonus she was eligible to receive. (Joint
25
Letter #1 at 4. Moreover, the Points Plaintiff received were awarded by her supervisor and were
26
purely discretionary, and do not constitute a bonus. (Joint Letter #1 at 5.)
27
1
28
The two letters are virtually identical, so, going forward, the Court will cite to the first joint letter
unless they differ.
2
1
Currently, Plaintiff’s operative complaint is limited to the STI bonus plan, and contains no
2
allegations pertaining to the Points Program nor does she allege that points earned constituted a
3
bonus that must be included in determining the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Thus,
4
this information is not relevant.
“Merchandise Rcvd” Notation
5
B.
6
Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 11 seek information concerning the
7
“Merchandise Rcvd” notation on Plaintiff’s wage statements. (Joint Letter #1 at 5-6; Joint Letter
8
#2 at 6.) According to Best Buy, “Merchandise Rcvd” pertains to merchandise Plaintiff purchased
9
pursuant to Best Buy’s employee discount program and is not a bonus. (Joint Letter #1 at 8.)
10
Both sides reiterate the same arguments addressed above. See discussion supra Part III.A.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Similarly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental responses, because the
12
operative complaint is limited to the STI plan, rendering the information sought irrelevant.
13
14
15
16
IV.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental
responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5-6, and Request for Production Nos. 10-11.
Notwithstanding, the deposition testimony provided indicates that Plaintiff does not
17
understand her wage statements. The undersigned is confident that Defendant will provide some
18
information, if it has not already, regarding the wage statement notations to mollify any concerns
19
that these represent non-discretionary bonuses.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?