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