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)

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