Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 180

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 163 1/13/17 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KELLY CARROLL, ET AL., Case No. 3:15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW) Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER REGARDING 1/13/17 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER v. 9 10 WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 163 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On January 13, 2017, the parties filed a joint discover letter concerning Plaintiffs’ request 14 to depose one or more Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses regarding the Store Vision Teller (“SVT”) data 15 system, as well as those individuals who extracted the SVT data for the named plaintiffs. SVT 16 data has not been produced for any other class members. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 163.) 17 Wells Fargo argues that Plaintiffs’ requests seek expansive testimony regarding “the 18 technical details of a software application that does not track hours worked by putative class 19 members” and are, therefore, not relevant under Rule 26. (Joint Letter at 4.) The Court disagrees. 20 As described, the SVT data, when compared to the pay and time records, shows when Plaintiffs 21 performed banking transactions for customers when they were off-the-clock or during meal 22 periods. (See Joint Letter at 2.) In fact, in a hearing before the district court, Wells Fargo objected 23 to producing SVT data for the 25% sample under the auspices of it taking potentially seven 24 months to extract that data. Plaintiffs, however, are not currently seeking to compel the 25 production of SVT data for other class members. 26 Rather, Plaintiffs’ Topic 1 seeks to depose a corporate designee or designees who can 27 testify to certain facets of the SVT system. (Joint Letter, Ex. 1.) This seems reasonable given the 28 probative value of the SVT data, and perhaps a deposition will permit Plaintiffs to learn enough 1 about the SVT system to facilitate more narrowed discovery regarding the system, so that any 2 other documentary production does not take seven months. In opposition, and without 3 explanation, Wells Fargo claims that it would be “extremely burdensome for Defendants to 4 designate and prepare witnesses.” (See Joint Letter at 5.) The Court finds it unlikely that Wells 5 Fargo does not have an employee who is familiar enough with the SVT system to enable sufficient 6 preparation without rising to the level of undue burden. See id. 7 Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request to depose a person on Topic 2 regarding the extraction, 8 compilation, assembly, format or revision of SVT data for the named plaintiffs likely can be 9 obtained from the designated witness for Topic 1. While Wells Fargo is free to designate whomever it chooses, Topic 2 merely seeks to apply the workings of the SVT system to the data 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 that was already produced for the named plaintiffs. 12 In light of the foregoing, Wells Fargo shall designate a corporate witness or witnesses for 13 Topics 1 and 2 within 14 days of this order, and the parties shall meet and confer regarding 14 deposition scheduling. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?