Raquedan v. Centerplate of Delaware Inc

Filing 56

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 54 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

RODRIGO RAQUEDAN, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

v.

Case No. 5:17-cv-03828-LHK (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1
Re: Dkt. No. 54

CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive,
Defendant.

18
19

Rodrigo Raquedan (“Raquedan”) in May 2017 filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court

20

a putative class action against his former employer, Centerplate of Delaware, Inc. (“Centerplate”).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Centerplate employees work at concessions located in various California entertainment venues
(i.e.: stadiums, theaters, etc.). The suit alleges eight claims for relief based on violations of the
wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and one claim for unfair competition
under the California Business and Professions Code. Broadly speaking, the claims seek damages
for Centerplate’s failure to pay all amounts due to its California workers with respect to security
checks, meal and rest breaks, vacation and sick time, and reimbursement for out-of-pocket
business expenses. Centerplate removed the case to this court in July 2017.

1
2

The Discovery Requests
On October 10, 2017 Raquedan propounded Special Interrogatories Set #1, which asked

3

for a “class list,” the names, addresses, and other pertinent information for the members of the

4

defined putative class, as well as separate lists for the various, defined sub-classes. Defendant

5

responded shortly thereafter with wholesale objections: attorney-client privilege, confidential and

6

proprietary information, vague and ambiguous terminology (i.e.: “supervises”, “worked” and

7

“location,” “records”), no prima facie showing, compound, unduly burdensome, and improper

8

class representative). In short, it declined to provide any information.

9

Also on October 10, 2017, Raquedan propounded Special Interrogatories Set #2, which
inquired about the kinds and types of wage and hour records defendant kept on its employees,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

about policies and documentation on meal and rest breaks, sick time, wage statements, etc., and

12

about people in defendant’s organization with knowledge of these matters. Defendant responded

13

with a laundry list of objections and declined to provide any information.

14

On October 16, 2017, plaintiff propounded his Requests for Production of Documents Set

15

#1 (“RFPs”). Broadly speaking, these asked for time and payroll records, copies of HR manuals

16

and employee handbooks, documents recording or accounting for meal and rest breaks,

17

management training material about meal and rest breaks, sick time policy and calculations,

18

reimbursement policies on employee uniform purchases and out of pocket business expenses, and

19

documents about security check policies and practice, including videos of actual security checks.

20

Centerplate responded by objecting to everything and producing nothing.

21
22
23
24

Also on October 16, 2017 plaintiff propounded Requests for Admissions Set#1 (“RFAs”).
Defendant objected at length to each Request and refused to admit or deny any of them.
Discussion
On January 24, 2018, the presiding judge in this case held a further Case Management

25

Conference (“CMC”). She began by observing she did not want the substitution of named

26

plaintiffs (which had been approved by the court the day before) to delay the case going forward.

27

She wanted to “keep the case on track.” (Dkt. 36 at 2).s The deadline for filing a class

28

certification motion had been set in a previous order at July 23, 2018. Was that still doable?
2

1

Defense counsel said they had not yet decided whether to simply answer the amended complaint

2

or to challenge it. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated discovery had been propounded to defendant, but all

3

they had gotten back so far were objections. For example, he said that they had not even been able

4

to get a class contact list from the defendant, a statement which prompted the presiding judge to

5

observe that such a list was surely needed for a class certification motion: “It’s no surprise that

6

you would need a class list.” (Id. at 4). And, plaintiffs’ counsel feared there would be further

7

delay if defendant insisted that the discovery be re-propounded because there were now two new

8

named plaintiffs in place of the former one. Defense counsel said that “some” of their objections

9

to the outstanding discovery had been because the original named plaintiff had a criminal
conviction for identity theft, which---he asserted---justifiably had caused defendant to balk at

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

giving such a person access to private class member information. He told the court that now they

12

would re-evaluate their discovery responses in light of what they concluded about the suitability of

13

the new named plaintiffs. He said they “don’t want to waste judicial resources” and would meet

14

and confer over the outstanding discovery with plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. at 6).

15

On February 23, 2018 Centerplate filed a FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

16

plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and set the hearing for August 8, 2018. (Shortly after the

17

filing, the presiding judge advanced the hearing to July 5, 2018.) The thrust of this motion is that

18

the settlement of a previous class action against Centerplate released all the claims that are being

19

asserted in this case. Plaintiffs, not surprisingly, contend that the earlier release did no such thing.

20

It remains to be seen how the presiding judge will decide.

21

Well, whatever meeting and conferring took place between the attorneys following the

22

January 24th court hearing (which reportedly included a face-to-face one hour meeting between

23

lead counsel) did not produce a resolution of the discovery impasse. In fact, it produced no

24

substantive discovery responses at all.

25

On March 30, 2017 the parties filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #1. In

26

DDJR #1, plaintiffs tell the court they have been denied any and all discovery. No documents.

27

No answers to interrogatories. Nothing. This is not the typical situation where the two sides

28

negotiate over the scope and breadth of discovery, reach agreement on some, and then ask the
3

court to sort out what they cannot agree on. The two sides apparently never got to the point of

2

negotiating over scope and breadth of any particular discovery request. Simply put, defendant

3

refused to produce anything. Defendant did not base its refusal on some perceived character

4

shortcomings with the two new named plaintiffs, nor on the quibble that the outstanding discovery

5

requests had not been re-propounded in the name of the two new named plaintiffs, nor on the

6

myriad objections made in its initial replies to the requests. And, it did not even argue that the

7

discovery was not relevant to class certification issues. Instead, its position now is that plaintiffs

8

are not “entitled” to any discovery unless they survive defendant’s recently filed motion to

9

dismiss. Defendant tells the court that “no discovery should be ordered unless and until the Court

10

determines that these Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to make out a plausible claim for relief.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

(Dkt. 54 at 12).

12

At the January 24th CMC defense counsel said nothing about possibly asking for a stay on

13

any discovery if it were to file a motion to dismiss. Surely, if it felt a stay was in order, it should

14

at the latest have brought that to the presiding judge’s attention when it did file its motion to

15

dismiss in February. If it had done so, surely plaintiffs would have objected, and then the

16

presiding judge would have decided whether to grant it and, if so, whether the existing case

17

management schedule should be extended.

18

However, and this truly rankles the court, Centerplate did not seek an order staying

19

discovery. Instead, Centerplate gave itself a stay on discovery, leaving it to plaintiffs to shoulder

20

the burden of looking to this court for relief. Especially because the clock keeps ticking down to

21

the filing deadline for a class certification motion, Centerplate’s conduct appears both

22

presumptuous and improper. Unless defendant hits a home run with its motion to dismiss, a whole

23

lot of time has been wasted.

24

The presiding judge was not asked to stay discovery and has not done so. This court was

25

not asked to stay discovery (and would not have the authority to do so without express direction

26

from the presiding judge). The only grounds asserted by defendant in DDJR#1 for refusing to

27

comply with plaintiffs’ discovery requests are that Centerplate was entitled to a discovery stay. It

28

has obtained no order granting the entitlement it chose, erroneously, to assume it had. If defendant
4

1

had in good faith seriously negotiated with plaintiffs over slimming down or cutting back on some

2

of the discovery requests, with the aim of then actually producing what’s fair, then this court

3

would have been willing to dig into the particulars to rule on where they disagreed. But, that give

4

and take never took place (or, never was reported to the court). At this juncture, the court feels its

5

choices are either to retroactively approve a de facto stay (rewarding defendant’s conduct), or to

6

order full compliance with the discovery requests. The court opts for ordering full compliance.

7

Accordingly, the court orders Centerplate to fully and completely answer Special
Interrogatories Set #1 and Special Interrogatories Set #2, to produce the documents sought in

9

Requests for Production of Documents Set #1, and to respond to the Request for Admissions Set

10

#1. All objections are overruled except as to information claimed protected by the attorney-client

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

privilege or work product doctrine (which must be identified in a proper privilege log).

12

Since the deadline for filing a class certification motion currently remains at July 23, 2018,

13

discovery production must be accomplished quickly. Defendant has had many months to prepare

14

itself for such a possible eventuality. If defendant feels a protective order is needed, the parties

15

must meet and confer and agree on a protective order to be submitted to this court for its approval

16

no later than April 20, 2018. No later than April 27, 2018, defendant shall provide its answers to

17

the first set of interrogatories. If an “opt-out” letter to class members is contemplated, then the

18

parties shall agree on its language and submit it for approval by May 4, 2018. The second set of

19

interrogatories shall be answered by May 11, 2018. With respect to the RFPs, defendant shall

20

begin a rolling production starting now, to be completed by May 28, 2018. The RFAs shall be

21

responded to by June 4, 2018.

22

If an appeal is taken from this order, compliance is stayed until the appeal is resolved.

23

SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: April 13, 2018

25
26
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
5