Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc.

Filing 195

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 193 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/6/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S
DISCOVERY REQUESTS

v.
VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 193

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.15-cv-02277-JST (JSC)

12
13

Plaintiffs represent a class of flight attendants suing Defendant Virgin America, Inc.

14

(“Defendant”) for wages and hour violations. Discovery disputes have been referred to the

15

undersigned magistrate judge. (Dkt. No. 130.) Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint

16

discovery letter brief regarding Defendant’s request to compel the named Plaintiffs to provide

17

responses or supplemental responses to the following requests: (1) identify every California

18

election Plaintiffs voted in since March 2011; (2) identify every job, including the name and

19

location of the employer, since March 2011 for Plaintiffs Garcia and Smith; (3) identify every

20

place Plaintiffs resided since March 2011; (4) provide the specific dates and amount of time

21

Plaintiffs spent submitting incident reports; (5) identify wages owed that Defendant’s allegedly

22

failed to pay; and (6) produce documents evidencing hours Plaintiffs worked off-the clock. (Dkt.

23

No. 193.)

24

Named plaintiffs are ordered to fully respond to Defendant’s interrogatories regarding (1)

25

elections, (2) employment history, and (3) residence history. This information is relevant to the

26

named Plaintiffs’ residency and is not disproportional to the needs of the case.

27
28

Plaintiffs are also ordered to provide supplemental responses to Defendant’s request
regarding the specific dates and amount of time Plaintiffs spent preparing incident reports to the

1

extent Plaintiffs can provide further details now that the incident reports they completed have been

2

produced to them. For example, Plaintiffs’ earlier estimate may be high or low and Defendant is

3

entitled to know Plaintiffs’ current contention as to the number, dates and estimated time spent as

4

to each incident report in light of the production of the incident reports.

5

As for the request for a privilege log, it is unclear even to the Court whether Plaintiffs are
withholding responsive documents on grounds of privilege. If Plaintiffs believe that responsive

7

documents are privileged but also irrelevant, then such position should have been made clear to

8

Defendant so that the parties can meet and confer. Defendant is not required to guess whether

9

Plaintiffs are withholding documents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall supplement their written

10

response to RFP Nos. 5, 9, 10, 18 (Bernstein), 19, 71 (Smith), and 72 (Smith and Garcia) to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

Defendant’s request for supplemental responses regarding wages allegedly owed to

13

Plaintiffs is denied. The total amount of wages owed is expert discovery and Plaintiffs have

14

stipulated this information will be provided in their forthcoming expert report.

15

Defendant’s request for documents evidencing hours Plaintiffs worked off-the-clock is also

16

denied. Plaintiffs responded that they are not in possession of any requested documents; thus,

17

Plaintiffs will not be offering any documents in support of their off-the-clock claims other than

18

what has already been produced.

19
20

Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses as set forth in this Order on or before October
20, 2017.

21

This Order disposes of Docket No. 193.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: October 6, 2017

24
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2