Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics
Filing
321
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 301 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 12/19/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kcm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
FERNANDO RUIZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
15
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
v.
(ECF No. 301)
XPO LAST MILE, INC., formerly
AFFINITY LOGISTICS CORP.,
16
Defendant.
17
18
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37
19
(“Sanctions Motion”) (ECF No. 301), Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
20
Motion for Sanctions (“Def.’s Opp’n”) (ECF No. 303), and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
21
Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37 (“Pl.’s Reply”) (ECF No. 301). On June 30,
22
2016 the Court took the Sanctions Motion under submission without oral argument
23
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d). (ECF No. 305.) Having considered the parties’
24
arguments and the law, the Court rules as follows.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
BACKGROUND1
1
2
In August of 2015, the parties submitted to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford a
3
Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute (“Disc. Mot.”) (ECF No. 275). In
4
the Joint Motion, Plaintiffs sought: (1) “[a]ny and all ‘Settlement Statements,’ ‘pay
5
summary’ documents, and/or other statements showing (i) the specific expenses deducted
6
from each Driver’s pay on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and (ii) the amount of those
7
deductions[;]” (2) “[a]ny and all ‘manifests,’ ‘activity logs,’ ‘activity reports,’ ‘time logs,’
8
or similar documents that show the work schedule of each Driver and the hours worked by
9
each Driver[;]” and (3) “[a]ny and all Load Out/Pay Reports for the Drivers.” (Disc. Mot.
10
3–9.) The Discovery Motion was filed in part because Defendant had previously supplied
11
documents with itemized deduction information, but containing only Week-52 data (i.e.,
12
year-end totals) and “except for approximately 270 pages, every other page [wa]s either
13
. . . entirely redacted . . . and/or . . . a duplicate or triplicate of another page.” (Sanctions
14
Mot. Ex. A, 1). Ultimately, Judge Crawford ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor on all requests,
15
ordering Defendant to either comply with each request or instead provide Plaintiffs with
16
“a detailed declaration signed under penalty of perjury by Affinity’s most knowledgeable
17
representative” providing “a complete explanation as to why the responsive” documents
18
could not be located and outlining “all steps taken to make this determination.” (Order re
19
Joint Mot. for Determination of Disc. Dispute (“Order Compelling Discovery”) 4–10, ECF
20
No. 292.)
21
After Judge Crawford’s Order, Plaintiffs allege that “[o]n March 25, 2016,
22
Defendant produced more than 75,000 pages of documents,” none of which included “a
23
single Settlement Statement, pay summary, manifest, activity log, activity report, time log
24
or load out . . . / pay report.” (Sanctions Mot. 5.) Instead, the majority of documents
25
Defendant submitted were “new ADP Reports” that vary in form from Defendant’s prior
26
27
28
1
Because the complete factual and procedural history of this over-ten-year-old case is not relevant to this
particular motion, the Court here only summarizes facts and procedural history relevant to the currently
pending motion.
2
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
1
ADP production and from which Plaintiffs allege they “cannot determine the weekly
2
expense deductions . . . .” (Id. at 5–6). Further, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has not
3
supplied “any documents for the May 2001 to June 2004 time period.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis
4
original).)
5
explaining that: (1) XPO Last Mile has changed corporate forms several times during the
6
pendency of this litigation, and during “these acquisitions and corporate changes, legacy
7
Affinity Logistics documents have been maintained to the best of our ability in Georgia[,]”
8
(Def.’s Opp’n Ex. 1, 1); (2) Defendant “searched for activity reports” but they may have
9
been “inadvertently disposed of some time during the past decade[,]” (id. Ex. 2, 1); (3)
10
Defendant “searched for customer manifests” but “was not able to locate customer
11
manifests for the relevant time period” because Defendant “does not maintain copies of its
12
customers’ manifests[,]” (id.); and (4) Defendant “searched for load out/pay reports[,]” but
13
“[t]o the best of [its] knowledge . . . never had possession of these documents[,]” and if it
14
did then the reports “were inadvertently disposed of during the past decade[,]” (id. at 2–3).
15
Several weeks later, Judge Crawford held a status conference regarding the above-
16
described discovery. (ECF No. 300.) Plaintiffs argued that Defendant had not complied
17
with the Order Compelling Discovery; Defendant asserted compliance. (See Sanctions
18
Mot. 6.) Judge Crawford “invited Plaintiffs to make a motion under Rule 37 if they
19
believed it was appropriate.” (Id.) Several weeks later, Plaintiffs filed the instant Sanctions
20
Motion.
21
Instead, Defendant submitted several declarations with its production,
LEGAL STANDARD
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 gives courts the power to impose sanctions on
23
parties who do not comply with discovery orders, including: (i) directing that facts be taken
24
as established “as the prevailing party claims,” (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from
25
introducing certain evidence or from supporting or opposing certain claims or defenses,
26
(iii) wholly or partially striking pleadings, (iv) staying further proceedings until orders are
27
obeyed, (v) dismissing the action in whole or in part, (vi) entering a default judgment
28
against the disobedient party, or (vii) treating failure to obey most kinds of orders as
3
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
1
contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Rule 37 also allows the court to order payment of
2
expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the other party’s failure. Fed. R. Civ. P.
3
37(b)(2)(C). Unless a proposed sanction implicates dismissal of an action, the court need
4
not identify “willfulness, fault, or bad faith[,]” even if the sanction is severe. Yeti by Molly,
5
Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). A district court has
6
wide discretion in determining the appropriateness of issuing sanctions, id.; Navellier v.
7
Slettenm, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001), and this is especially true when the sanction
8
imposed due to failure to obey a discovery order “bears a reasonable relationship to the
9
subject of discovery that was frustrated by sanctionable conduct[,]” id.
Further—
10
independent of Rule 37—a district court has “the inherent power . . . to levy sanctions in
11
response to abusive litigation practices.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th
12
Cir. 2006).
13
ANALYSIS
14
In the present case, Plaintiffs’ Sanctions Motion requests the following relief:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(1) precluding Defendant from using or relying upon Settlement Statements,
pay summaries, ADP Master Control Reports or documents from Paychex,
Inc. to dispute the expense reimbursement estimates developed by
Plaintiffs;
(2) precluding Defendant from using or relying upon Settlement Statements,
pay summaries, ADP Master Control Reports or documents from Paychex,
Inc. to support its defense of “enhanced compensation;”
(3) precluding Defendant from using or relying upon manifests or load out . . .
/ pay reports to dispute (a) the hours and mileage estimates developed by
Plaintiffs and (b) the fuel expense estimates developed by Plaintiffs; and
(4) awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the
filing of this motion and the motion to compel.
24
(Sanctions Mot. 2–3.) Defendant responds that (1) “some documents, which were not
25
previously requested, can no longer be located[;]” (2) Plaintiffs’ preclusion requests are
26
overbroad both because they “cite[] no authority and make[] no argument supporting [their]
27
position that Affinity should not be able to rely on these already-produced documents,
28
some of which are already in evidence in this case[,]” and because Rule 37(c)(1) does not
4
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
1
support such preclusion; (3) Defendant’s recently produced ADP reports adequately
2
“demonstrate the compensation received by the class members and the settlement
3
deductions taken from that compensation[;]” and (4) the requested manifests and load
4
out/pay reports “belong[] to [Defendant’s] customers” and thus Defendant does not have
5
those documents in its possession. (Def.’s Opp’n 4–5.) The Court often agrees with
6
Plaintiffs, but also agrees with Defendant regarding several issues. The Court first
7
addresses in turn each of Defendant’s arguments opposing sanctions, then concludes by
8
imposing appropriate sanctions.
9
As an initial matter, a large part of Defendant’s argument against sanctions hinges
10
on the fact that certain requested documents may well have been inadvertently lost or
11
destroyed. But this is absolutely no excuse for non-production. Nor is the fact that the
12
specific documents were not previously requested by Plaintiffs. The “obligation to
13
preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to
14
litigation—most commonly when suit has already been filed, providing the party
15
responsible for the destruction with express notice, but also on occasion in other
16
circumstances, as for example when a party should have known that the evidence may be
17
relevant to future litigation.” Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998).
18
In the present case, this is, and has always been, a class action complaint concerning
19
payment to delivery drivers working for Defendant. (See, e.g., Order Granting Mot. to
20
Transfer Venue 1, ECF No. 1.) Thus Defendant should have been on notice that the
21
documents here at issue had to preserved, and Defendant’s merely classifying as
22
“inadvertent” any destruction of these relevant documents does not relieve Defendant of
23
this duty.
24
Next, although Plaintiffs offer no authority directly on point for precluding
25
Defendant from using previously identified documents, neither does Defendant offer any
26
authority directly on point saying such preclusion is improper. Instead, Defendant argues
27
that Plaintiffs’ citation to the language of 37(c)(1) to support their preclusion arguments is
28
insufficient because that Rule does not expressly encompass Plaintiffs’ requested
5
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
1
preclusion relief. (Def.’s Opp’n 7–8.) However, Rule 37(c)(1) continues past the text cited
2
by Defendant, specifically directing that a court may also “impose other appropriate
3
sanctions, including any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(vi).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
37(c)(1)(C). These additional sections of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) explicitly do not cabin in a
5
court’s discretion; indeed, they even specifically list as permissible the sanction of
6
“prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or
7
defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence . . . .” Id. at 37(b)(A)(ii).2
8
And, as noted above, a district court has wide discretion under Rule 37 to fashion
9
appropriate sanctions for discovery abuses, especially where—as here—the requested
10
sanctions are tailored to the particular subjects encompassed by the discovery violations.
11
Accordingly, Plaintiffs request to prohibit Defendant from using selective documents of a
12
specific type due to Defendant’s impermissible non-preservation of certain evidence of the
13
same specific type fits both squarely within the Rule’s provisions and the Court’s
14
discretion.
15
Next, after carefully reviewing both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s attached exhibits,
16
the Court concludes that Defendant’s supplied master ADP reports technically provide the
17
same information as the documents Plaintiffs requested. As noted above, Defendant
18
initially produced only Week-52 master ADP reports, and although the reports alone were
19
nonresponsive because Plaintiff needed weekly or bi-weekly data, the form of the reports
20
were responsive insofar as they listed individual columns of deductions. (See Sanctions
21
Mot. Ex. E, at 2.)
22
Defendant supplied weekly master ADP reports that varied in presentation from those
23
Defendant had previously provided to Plaintiffs. Especially relevant to this Sanctions
24
Motion, (1) the newly produced ADP reports do not have columns separately listing
25
statutory and voluntary deductions, replacing them instead with a single column labeled
After Judge Crawford issued her Order Compelling Discovery,
26
27
28
2
The Court also may grant Plaintiffs requested preclusion based on its inherent power, discussed in pages
3–4 of this Order, supra.
6
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
1
“Accumulations to Date[,]” and (2) the reports list only year-to-date and quarter-to-date
2
(rather than weekly) totals for deductions and earnings. (Compare Def.’s Opp’n Ex. 2, at
3
5–7 (new ADP reports), with Sanctions Motion Ex. E, at 2 (old ADP reports).) This, of
4
course, makes it much harder to extract data from the reports for purposes of Plaintiffs’
5
claims. However, it does not render such data extraction impossible. Plaintiffs can still
6
read each report, starting with week one of each calendar year working forward, and in so
7
doing calculate each weekly deduction based on the mathematical difference between the
8
current and preceding week’s individualized deductions listed in the “Accumulations to
9
Date” column. Furthermore, even if the Court found this to be a violation of the discovery
10
order, Defendant’s point is well taken that supplying documents that do not comply with
11
the discovery request should not be grounds to “preclude Affinity from using them[,]”
12
especially because here “they were produced in their original form and have in no way
13
been ‘spoilated.’” (Def.’s Opp’n 10.)
14
Finally, Defendant’s argument that certain documents belong to its customers and
15
therefore are not in Defendant’s possession was already addressed and dispensed with by
16
Judge Crawford. She noted: “Without more, it is unclear why [D]efendant, by virtue of its
17
relationship with customers . . . would not have the legal right to obtain and produce copies
18
of relevant manifests.” (Order Compelling Disc. 8.) Because Defendant in its Opposition
19
offers no new line of analysis, this argument again fails.
20
CONCLUSION
21
Given the foregoing, the Court FINDS Defendant violated the Order Compelling
22
Discovery insofar as it failed to produce many of the documents which Plaintiffs requested.
23
Merely asserting attempts to search for relevant documents, that some documents were
24
inadvertently disposed of, and that others are in the control of Defendant’s customers are
25
insufficient to comply with the Order Compelling Discovery. Further, the Court sees no
26
reason why going forward Defendant should be allowed to selectively use certain
27
documents the specific type of which it has repeatedly failed to produce for Plaintiffs (and
28
indeed that Defendant admits it may have destroyed). Accordingly, pursuant to Federal
7
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
1
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the Court’s inherent authority, the Court GRANTS IN
2
PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Sanction Motion as follows:
3
(1) Defendant SHALL be precluded from using or relying on Settlement
4
Statements, pay summaries, or documents from Paychex, Inc. to dispute
5
the expense reimbursement estimates developed by Plaintiffs;
6
(2) Defendant SHALL be precluded from using or relying on Settlement
7
Statements, pay summaries, or documents from Paychex, Inc. to support
8
its defense of “enhanced compensation”;
9
(3) Defendant SHALL be precluded from using or relying upon manifests
10
or load out / pay reports to dispute (a) the hours and mileage estimates
11
developed by Plaintiffs and (b) the fuel expense estimates developed by
12
Plaintiffs;
13
(4) Plaintiffs SHALL be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
14
associated with the filing of this motion and the motion to compel.
15
Plaintiffs SHALL FILE an application for attorneys’ fees and costs,
16
including all relevant fee and cost data and legal argument, on or before
17
January 5, 2017. Defendants SHALL FILE an opposition to the fee and
18
cost data, if any, on or before January 19, 2017.
19
20
21
22
(5) Plaintiffs’ request to preclude Defendant from relying upon “ADP
Master Control Reports” is DENIED in its entirety as to all issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 19, 2016
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
05cv2125 JLS (KSC)
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?