Robinson v. The Chefs' Warehouse

Filing 73

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 58 Discovery Letter Brief re: Requests for Production. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHAON ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 1/30/17 JOINT
LETTER RE REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 7, 41
& 59

v.
THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,

Re: Dkt. No. 58

Defendant.

On January 30, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Plaintiffs’ Requests for

13

Production Nos. 7, 41, and 59, which seek pay and time records for Plaintiffs and putative class

14

members during the relevant time period. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 58.) Defendant only produced

15

responsive documents pertaining to the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that documents

16

pertaining to the putative class are necessary to determine whether class certification requirements

17

are met. (Joint Letter at 1.)

18
19
20

Upon review of the joint letter, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court orders
Defendant to produce responsive documents for a 25% sample of the putative class.
I.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiffs Shoan Robinson and Sean Clark assert individual and class action claims against

22

Defendant The Chef’s Warehouse West Coast, LLC, alleging wage and hour violations, as well as

23

various discrimination claims. The proposed class consists of “[a]ll persons employed by

24

Defendant [ ] in the State of California as a Driver, Driver Trainer, or Dispatcher at any time on or

25

after October 26, 2011.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) Defendant previously represented that there

26

are approximately 100 putative class members. (Dkt. No. 57 at 2.)

27
28

In its supplemental responses to the requests for production, dated November 16, 2016,
Defendant offered to provide a “sampling of putative class members’ ” time records

1

“for the time period of June 25, 2014 to present” with identifying information redacted. (See Joint

2

Letter at 1, Ex. 2 at 2.) Thereafter, Defendant reneged on the agreement after consulting with its

3

expert regarding the size of the class. (Joint Letter at 2.)

4
5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has

6

the right to the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

7

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery need not

8

be admissible to be discoverable. Id. The court, however, “must limit the frequency or extent of

9

discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

12

information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope

13

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Furthermore, “[t]he court may, for good

14

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

15

undue burden or expense,” including by precluding discovery, by conditioning disclosure or

16

discovery on specified terms, by preventing inquiry into certain matters, or by limiting the scope

17

of discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on

18

the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is

19

required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

20

“District courts have broad discretion to control the class certification process, and whether

21

or not discovery will be permitted lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Vinole v.

22

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

23
24

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of pay and time records despite an apparent

25

inability to make a prima facie showing that they can satisfy the requirements for class

26

certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiff argues that the discovery is

27

necessary to determine whether certification requirements are met, including typicality and

28

commonality. (Joint Letter at 1.)
2

1

A.

Request for Production No. 7

2

Request No. 7 seeks the production of “All TIME CARDS referencing PLAINTIFF or

3

CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.” (Joint Letter, Ex. 1 at 1.) Defendant answered

4

subject to its objections, and stated that it “offered to produce a sampling of putative class

5

members’ time cards for the time period of June 25, 2014 to the present with names and other

6

identifying information, including contact information, redacted (id number only).” (Joint Letter,

7

Ex. 2 at 2.) Defendant reiterates the same arguments that it did in the other January 30, 2017 joint

8

letter, which concerned Interrogatory No. 2. (Dkt. No. 57.) Namely, that both plaintiffs lack

9

typicality due to declarations they filed in the Chicas matter, and that neither named plaintiff can
serve as a class representative because their claims must be dismissed pursuant to the Motor

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Carrier Exemption. (Joint Letter at 2-3.) The Court found neither argument availing for the reasons

12

set forth in that order, and hereby incorporates that analysis herein. (See 3/3/17 Order re:

13

Interrogatory No. 2, Dkt. No. 72.)

14

Furthermore, the Court understands that Defendant had previously agreed to produce

15

discovery for the entire class period despite the Chicas settlement, but its supplemental responses

16

now attempt to limit their responsive documents to the period after Chicas, which is June 25,

17

2014. (See Dkt. No. 34 at 3.) At first blush, this appears to be gamesmanship on Defendant’s part,

18

and the Court does not look kindly on this type of conduct, which surely runs afoul of the

19

Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct.

20

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Defendant to produce responsive documents

21

insofar as they are proportional to the needs of the case, and finds a 25% sample to be fair and

22

proportional. The Court does not believe Defendant’s claim that producing the information for

23

25% of approximately 100 current and former employees would be unduly burdensome. (See Joint

24

Letter at 3.) The sample shall be random, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding

25

how the sample should be selected. Defendant is ordered to produce the documents generally

26

without redaction, with the exception of social security numbers, as general privacy concerns

27

should be ameliorated by the stipulated protective order currently in effect. The Court does not

28

have the benefit of knowing what other information is contained in these documents, so to the
3

1

extent that Defendant believes that other information should be redacted, the parties shall meet and

2

confer in good faith before seeking further court intervention.

3

B.

4

Request No. 41 seeks the production of
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payroll records for an all
DOCUMENTS that set forth a record of the time worked by
PLAINTIFF or CLASS MEMBERS for YOU, including but not
limited to payroll data, actual compensation records, pay stub
records, verification of payment for services rendered, time cards,
login/out records, sign-in/out sheets, time sheets, work schedules,
security tapes, sales/job tickets, computer logs, alarm records, or
reports.

5
6
7
8
9

Request for Production No. 41

(Joint Letter, Ex. 1 at 2.) Defendant again answered subject to objection and “offered to produce a
sampling of putative class members’ schedules, time cards, and wage statements for the time

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

period of June 25, 2014 to the present with names and other identifying information, including

12

contact information, redacted (id number only).” (Joint Letter, Ex. 2 at 4.)

13

Both sides incorporated by reference their positions made in connection with Request for

14

Production No. 7. Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to produce a 25% sample of

15

documents responsive to Request No. 41, and to do so without redacting identifying information

16

other than social security numbers. The sample shall consist of the same individuals whose

17

documents are produced by way of random sample in connection with Request No. 7.

18

C.

19

Request No. 59 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when any PLAINTIFF or

Request for Production No. 59

20

CLASS MEMBERS took meal periods during work shifts for DEFENDANT.” (Joint Letter, Ex. 1

21

at 3.) Defendant answered subject to objection and “offered to produce a sampling of putative

22

class members’ time cards for the time period of June 25, 2014 to the present with names and

23

other identifying information, including contact information, redacted (id number only).” (Joint

24

Letter, Ex. 2 at 6.)

25

Both sides again incorporated by reference their positions made in connection with

26

Request for Production No. 7. Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to produce a 25% sample

27

of documents responsive to Request No. 59, and to do so without redacting identifying

28

information other than social security numbers. Again, the sample shall consist of the same
4

1

individuals whose documents are produced by way of random sample in connection with Request

2

No. 7.
IV.

3
4

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, Defendant is ordered to produce the responsive document for the 25%

5

sample within 21 days of this order.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: March 3, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5