Lewis et al v. Wells Fargo & Co.

Filing 66

ORDER re 36 GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL AS MODIFIED. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 1/26/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 796831.3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 08-2670 CW UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION MARTIN LEWIS and AARON COOPER, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., Defendant. Case No. 08-2670 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AS MODIFIED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses, submitted via letter brief on December 11, 2008, came on for telephonic hearing on December 23, 2008, and January 15, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the Honorable Claudia Wilken presiding. All parties were represented by counsel and appeared telephonically. Having considered the memoranda and declarations filed by both sides, oral argument of counsel, and the relevant statutory and case law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion and orders as follows: 1. Defendant will produce the following by Friday, February 13, 2009, for all positions potentially satisfying the class definition set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint that have been in effect during the alleged class period: a. b. c. Job descriptions and job description templates; Organizational charts; and Documents describing employee expectations or skillsets (e.g., "Job Level Productivity and Skillset Expectations" documents). 2. By no later than Friday, February 20, 2009, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer, and Plaintiffs shall provide Defendant with a list of job titles they reasonably believe in good faith to be encompassed by the class definition ("Specific Job Titles") based their investigation and review of documents produced. 3. By no later than Monday, March 16, 2009 (unless the parties submit a motion or stipulation and proposed order with a reasonable justification for extending the deadline and such order is granted), which is 60 days after the Court's last hearing on January 15, 2009, Defendant shall produce the following "high priority" documents for the Specific Job Titles specified by Plaintiffs: a. Documents constituting resources used by employees to perform their job duties, such as training manuals, instruction handbooks, or repositories (e.g., Monsoon); b. c. Performance evaluation forms or exemplars; Documents reflecting policies governing when and how systems may be worked on or taken off line, such as change control processes (e.g., OpsWare); 796831.3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 08-2670 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1/26/09 d. Documents describing any workflow request, assignment or tracking systems (e.g., Wanda and Pac2000); and e. Policy documents such as employee handbooks and policies regarding tasks to be performed or hours worked. 5. After March 16, 2009, on a date to be agreed upon, Defendant will produce the remaining discovery with respect to all individuals who work or worked in the Specific Job Titles during the class periods set forth in the Complaint. 6. The Court makes no ruling on whether a given set of job titles set forth in the discovery process by either side demarcates the appropriate scope of a class to be certified under the relevant collective action or class action certification standards. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs' ability to change (by addition or subtraction) the job titles included in the list of Specific Job Titles after the deadline set forth in 2, above, should they discover information supporting such a change. In the event that an addition of job title(s) should occur, Defendant shall produce the "high priority" discovery (as set forth in 3) with respect to any added job title(s) within 60 days. 7. Defendant will produce electronic STAMP timekeeping data in summary form, showing individual employee hours totals by time period (such as daily, weekly, or biweekly), via electronic production that allows the recipient to manipulate the data contained therein, such as in Microsoft Excel, with respect to all positions potentially satisfying the class definition for which Defendant has collected STAMP data to date by Friday, January 23, 2009, and with respect to all individuals in the Specific Job Titles covered in 2, above, by February 27, 2009. This is without prejudice to Plaintiffs' ability to seek complete, non-summary data in electronic form if Plaintiffs believe the summary data are not sufficient, subject to Defendant's showing of burden within two weeks of the date on which Plaintiffs provide notice of their continuing request for complete data. It is so ORDERED. _______________________________ Honorable Claudia Wilken [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 08-2670 CW 796831.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 796831.3 United States District Court [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL Case No. 08-2670 CW

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?