Gardner et al v. Shell Oil Company et al

Filing 85

ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS re 84 Proposed Order, filed by Brian Cerre, Shell Oil Products Company LLC, Shell Oil Company, David Gardner, Equilon Enterprises LLC, Steve Mattern, William Sullivan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 4/18/11. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JAY SMITH (CA Bar No. 166105)
(Email: [e-mail])
LINDA S. FANG (CA Bar No. 240245)
(Email: [e-mail])
GILBERT & SACKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
RICHARD P. ROUCO (pro hac vice)
(Email: [e-mail])
QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO
2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs David Gardner, Steve Mattern,
Brian Cerre, and William Sullivan
ANGEL GOMEZ (CA Bar No. 74476)
(Email: [e-mail])
DEANNA BALLESTEROS (CA Bar No. 159079)
(Email: [e-mail])
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067-2506
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]

15
16

Attorneys for Defendants Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company LLC, and Equilon Enterprises
LLC dba Shell Oil Products US

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION

19
20

DAVID GARDNER, STEVE MATTERN,
BRIAN CERRE, and WILLIAM SULLIVAN
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees,

21
Plaintiffs,
22

Case No. C 09-05876 CW (DMR)
Honorable Donna M. Ryu for Discovery Matters
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
DISCOVERY REQUESTS

v.
23
24
25

SHELL OIL COMPANY, SHELL OIL
PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC, and EQUILON
ENTERPRISES LLC dba SHELL OIL
PRODUCTS US, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

26
Defendants.
27
28
Case No. C 09-05876 CW (DMR)
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1

Pursuant to an agreement between Plaintiffs David Gardner, Steve Mattern, Brian Cerri, and

2

William Sullivan, and Defendant Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US (“Equilon”)

3

regarding Plaintiffs’ First and Second Requests for Production of Documents and Plaintiffs’ Second Set

4

of Interrogatories to Defendant Equilon, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS the

5

following:

6
7

1.

On or before May 2, 2011, Equilon shall produce documents responsive to the following

requests for production:

8

Request For Production No. 10: Equilon shall produce documents sufficient to determine the

9

names and last-known addresses of all class members as defined in Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of

10

their Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 71).

11

Request for Production No. 14: Equilon shall produce documents that graphically depict the

12

layout of Plaintiffs’ and class members’ work areas, including a layout of the Martinez refinery. If such

13

documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

14

Request for Production No. 29: Equilon shall produce any and all documents signed by

15

Plaintiffs, class members, or a USW representative that purports to waive a meal period. If such

16

documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent that such fact.

17

Request for Production No. 30: Equilon shall produce or identify any and all documents that it

18

contends constitutes an “on duty” meal period agreement, as described in section 11 of the IWC Wage

19

Orders. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

20
21

2.

On or before May 5, 2011, Equilon shall produce documents responsive to the following

requests for production:

22

Request for Production No. 11: Equilon shall produce all (1) employee handbooks; (2) operating

23

manuals or instructions for each unit; and (3) documents containing work rules or rules governing the

24

conduct of employees that apply to Plaintiffs and class members. If such documents do not exist,

25

Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

26

Request for Production No. 12: Equilon shall produce documents that describe the duties of all

27

job classifications included in the class definition as listed in Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of their

28

///
Case No. C 09-05876 CW
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1

Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 71). If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively

2

represent such fact.

3

Request for Production No. 13: Equilon shall produce documents sufficient to identify each unit

4

at the Martinez refinery and the function of each unit. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall

5

affirmatively represent such fact.

6

Request for Production No. 31: Equilon shall produce copies of all claims made since 2000

7

alleging a violation of California’s meal period requirements and/or applicable IWC Wage Order.

8

Equilon shall produce all papers, pleadings or position statements related to such claims. If such

9

documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

10

Request for Production No. 32: Equilon shall produce copies of all decisions, judicial opinions,

11

court orders, administrative orders, proposed or final findings, proposed or final conclusions of law

12

and/or consent decrees that concern claims under California’s meal period requirements and/or

13

applicable IWC Wage Order and that were asserted by any employee who worked a shift schedule at the

14

Martinez refinery. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

15

Request for Production No. 63: Equilon shall produce any and all documents that support the

16

claim made in Brent Olsen’s declaration that class members have “hours” of “free time” during a 12-

17

hour shift. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

18
19

3.

On or before May 12, 2011, Equilon shall produce documents responsive to the following

requests for production:

20

Request for Production No. 15: Equilon shall produce weekly schedules for each operating unit

21

for each week from April 25, 2004 to the present. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall

22

affirmatively represent such fact.

23

Request for Production No. 16: Equilon shall produce Plaintiffs’ and class members’ payroll

24

records for each pay period from April 25, 2004 to the present. The documents shall show for each

25

Plaintiff and class member (1) the number of hours worked during each pay period; (2) the rate of pay;

26

(3) the shifts worked; and (4) the job classification or position worked. If such documents do not exist,

27

Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

28

///
Case No. C 09-05876 CW
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1

Request for Production No. 62: Equilon shall produce for each operating unit at the Martinez

2

refinery and for each year in the class period the weekly schedules that show the crew a class member is

3

assigned to, the position the class members is scheduled to work during a shift, the shifts the class

4

members is scheduled to work during a week, and/or the qualifications of each crew member. If such

5

documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

6

Request for Production No. 64: To the extent not covered in any prior requests for production,

7

Equilon shall produce documents showing all 12-hour shifts worked by Plaintiffs from April 25, 2004 to

8

the present. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent such fact.

9

Request for Production No. 65: To the extent not covered in a prior request for production,

10

Equilon shall produce documents showing all wages, penalties, or all other forms of compensation paid

11

to Plaintiffs during the class period. If such documents do not exist, Equilon shall affirmatively represent

12

such fact.

13

4.

14

On or before May 2, 2011, Equilon shall provide further, substantive answers to the

following interrogatories propounded in Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories:

15

Interrogatory No. 6: Equilon shall provide an explanation for why the request seeking an

16

admission that Equilon had a policy during the class period requiring class members to remain on the

17

premises of the refinery during their work shifts, unless given permission to leave the refinery, is not

18

entirely accurate.

19

Interrogatory No. 7: Equilon shall provide a supplemental explanation for its response to

20

Plaintiffs’ request that Equilon admit that during the class period there was a policy prohibiting class

21

members from leaving their work areas unattended. Equilon shall provide facts (i.e. name of supervisor,

22

unit, crew, time period, etc.) showing that class members were allowed to leave their work area

23

unattended. If there no such facts, Equilon shall state so in its response.

24

Interrogatory No. 8: Equilon shall provide an explanation for why Plaintiffs’ request seeking an

25

admission that Equilon did not have a practice of providing class members with relief to take an off duty

26

meal break is not entirely accurate as phrased.

27

Interrogatory No. 9: Equilon shall provide a supplemental explanation for its response to

28

Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant admit that during the class period class members did not have
Case No. C 09-05876 CW
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1

scheduled or designated meal periods. Equilon shall provide facts (i.e. name of supervisor, unit, crew,

2

time period, shifts, etc.) showing that class members had scheduled and/or designated meal periods. If

3

such facts do not exist, Equilon shall state so in its response.

4
5

5.

On or before May 10, 2011, Equilon shall provide further, substantive answers to the

following interrogatories propounded in Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories:

6

Interrogatory No. 13: Equilon shall provide the information requested in this interrogatory

7

regarding all instances of discipline of class members for leaving the refinery during a work shift

8

without permission or state that there are no facts responsive to the interrogatory.

9

Interrogatory No. 14: Equilon shall provide the information requested in this interrogatory

10

regarding all instances of discipline of class members for failing to respond to one or more radio calls or

11

state that there are no facts responsive to the interrogatory.

12

Interrogatory No. 15: Equilon shall provide the information requested in this interrogatory

13

regarding all instances of discipline of class members for sleeping or napping during a work shift or

14

state that there are no facts responsive to the interrogatory.

15

Interrogatory No. 16: Equilon shall provide the information requested in this interrogatory

16

regarding all instances of discipline of class members for reading unauthorized materials during a work

17

shift or state that there are no facts responsive to the interrogatory.

18

Interrogatory No. 17: Equilon shall provide the information requested in this interrogatory

19

regarding all instances of discipline of class members for watching movies, DVDs or television during a

20

work shift or state that there are no facts responsive to the interrogatory.

21

Interrogatory No. 18: Equilon shall provide the information requested in this interrogatory

22

regarding all instances of discipline of class members for accessing the Internet for personal reasons for

23

more than fifteen (15) minutes during a work shift or state that there are no facts responsive to the

24

interrogatory.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
Case No. C 09-05876 CW
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1

6.

In the event there is further dispute over the adequacy and/or timeliness of Equilon’s

responses to the discovery identified in this Order, Plaintiffs shall have leave to bring such discovery

3

disputes to the Court’s attention within 10 days of each of the above-listed deadlines, pursuant to Court’s

4

procedure for resolution of discovery disputes.

ER

Dated: 4/18/2011

R NIA

A

H

9

on
Judge D

FO

RT

7
8

yu
na M. R

NO

6

ERED

O ORD

IT IS S

LI

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

2

N

F

C

D IS T IC T O
R
________________________________________
Hon. Donna M. Ryu
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. C 09-05876 CW
ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1
2
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Linda S. Fang, certify that on April 15, 2011, the foregoing document entitled:
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FURTHER RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

4
5

was filed electronically in the Court’s ECF; thereby upon completion the ECF system automatically
generated a “Notice of Electronic Filing” (“NEF”) as service through CM/ECF to registered e-mail
addresses of parties of record in the case, in particular on the following:

6
7

Angel Gomez
[e-mail]

8

Deanna Ballesteros
[e-mail]

9
10

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on April 15, 2011, at Los Angeles, California.

11

/s/ Linda S. Fang
Linda S. Fang

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. C 09-05876 CW (DMR)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE