Moua v. International Business Machines Corporation et al

Filing 114

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 95 Motion for Discovery; granting 95 Motion to Compel (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

MAY MOUA, et al,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, et al,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: CV 10-1070 EJD (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 95)

Plaintiff May Moua (“Moua”) moves to compel Defendants International Business

17
Machines Corp., et al (“IBM”) for wage and hour documents for two IBM employees, Jason Drury
18
19

(“Drury”) and Xianzhan Lin (“Lin”). The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and of this

20

particular dispute, and so the court provides here only its decision and a summary of its reasoning.

21

Having considered the parties’ arguments and papers, the court GRANTS Moua’s motion.

22
23
24
25

Moua seeks the payroll records, paycheck itemizations, wage statements, and documents
“reflecting and relating to any and all time worked” by Drury and Lin on the grounds that these
records support her claims on behalf of Drury and Lin regarding California Labor Code violations
by IBM. 1 IBM argues that because Drury and Lin were nonexempt during the limitations period,

26
27
28
1

See Docket No. 95.

ORDER

1

the information Moua seeks is not relevant to any claims she could bring on their behalf. 2 IBM

2

asserts that Moua is proceeding only on the theory that she was misclassified as exempt under

3

California Labor Code Section 515 when she was in reality a nonexempt employee, and so any

4

violations she alleges stem only from that miscategorization. According to IBM, because Drury

5

and Lin were not exempt, and therefore not misclassified, any violations relating to Drury and Lin

6

are outside of the complaint and discovery of their records irrelevant.

7
Moua’s complaint primarily deals with her alleged misclassification and most of her claims

8
9

flow from that violation, 3 such as her claims about IBM’s failure to provide itemized wage

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

statements with accurate hours, 4 failure to pay overtime, 5 and failure to compensate her for meal

11

times she was not allowed to take. 6 But as nonexempt employees, Drury and Lin likewise were

12

entitled to all of the protections of which Moua claims she was deprived because of her

13

misclassification. 7 Judge Davila already has determined that Moua’s complaint combined with her

14
letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency provides sufficient notice to IBM of the
15
16

class of employees Moua seeks to represent.
IBM counters that Moua cannot use conclusory allegations in her complaint to “unlock the

17
18

doors of discovery.” 8 IBM is correct that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b),

19

Moua’s complaint may only survive a motion to dismiss if she pleads with sufficient particularity

20
21
22
2

See Docket No. 105.

3

See Docket No. 95 Ex. 1.

4

See Cal. Labor Code § 226.

5

See id. § 510.

6

See id. § 226.7.

7

See id. §§ 226, 226.7, 510.

8

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2006).

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER

1

factual allegations that support her claim, and thereby move into the discovery phase of the case. 9

2

But Moua is not defending her complaint in this court; she is seeking discovery on that complaint.

3

And as IBM highlights in its opposition, “[a] complaint guides the parties’ discovery, putting the

4

defendant on notice of the evidence it needs to adduce in order to defend against the plaintiff’s

5

allegations.” 10 This court’s obligation is to assess whether pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b),

6

Moua’s requests are relevant to the claims in her complaint, not to determine beforehand the merit

7
8
9

of those claims. Here, through her second amended complaint and her letter to LWDA, she has
alleged that Drury and Lin suffered violations similar to those she suffered. Discovery of IBM’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

records of their wages and work hours therefore falls well within the broad scope of “relevance”

11

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

12
13

IBM shall produce the documents regarding Drury and Lin to Moua no later than seven
days from this order.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated: March 20, 2013

17

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

See id.; Jeske v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections and Rehab., Case No. 11-cv-1838, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 45508, *8-9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) (applying Iqbal in dismissal of a similar case).
10

See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000).

ORDER