Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Filing 106

ORDER on 102 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Any discovery required by the attached Order must be produced within thirty (30) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/5/2011. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JENIFER WILLIAMS, an individual, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated,

13

CASE NO. 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

Plaintiff,
vs.

14
15
16

[DOC. NO. 102]
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant.

17
Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed by the
18
parties on October 3, 2011. (Doc. No. 102). Defendant also filed a separate opposition. (Doc. No.
19
103). Plaintiff filed this case as a class action and asserted seven claims for relief as follows: (1)
20
unfair competition; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of state law; (3) failure to provide
21
wages when due; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate
22
itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay overtime in violation ofthe federal Fair Labor
23
Standards Act ("FLSA"); (7) for civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
24
Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab.Code §§ 2698 et seq. Plaintiff’s motion to certify the
25
class in this case was denied. (Doc. No. 92).
26
At issue are four Requests for Production, numbered 72 through 75, propounded by
27
Plaintiff upon Defendant in Set Three.
28
-1-

09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

1
2

Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

3

parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim

4

or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of

5

any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for

6

discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

7

admissible evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no

8

requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather,

9

relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter that could

10

bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437

11

U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery

12

purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have

13

broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

14

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,

15

or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the burden

16

or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

17

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed.

18

R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and

19

related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the

20

reasons.” Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s

21

possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not

22

required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-

23

party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who

24

is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D.Cal.1995).

25

Discussion

26

1.

Request for Production No. 72

27

Plaintiff seeks the production of records of hours worked by Network Data Communication

28
-2-

09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

1

Analysts (“NDCAs”) during the relevant time period. Defendant has agreed to produce a time-

2

keeping system report for the period July 31, 2008, for System Administrators, NDCAs, and

3

NDCA Srs. employed by the Defendant in California. No further response is required.

4

2.

Request for Production No. 73

5

Plaintiff seeks all payroll records for NDCAs during the relevant time period. Defendant

6

has agreed to produce this data from November 19, 2008.

There is a dispute regarding the

7

relevant time period. Plaintiff claims that it begins on July 31, 2008; Defendant claims that it

8

begins on November 19, 2008. The dispute relates to whether the initiation date is from the filing

9

of the lawsuit or from the date that the State of California declined to initiate the PAGA claim that

10

is the basis for this discovery. The Court need not resolve this issue. Rather, since the burden of

11

producing the requested data from July 31, 2008, instead of from November 19, 2008, does not

12

appear oppressive, the Court will ORDER that the data to be produced extend to July 31, 2008.

13

3.

14

Plaintiff seeks all contracts between Defendant and any third party which relate to the job

15

duties performed by NDCAs. Defendant objects on the grounds that this request previously was

16

made, challenged and ruled upon by a prior Magistrate Judge adversely to Plaintiff and that the

17

request remains overbroad, oppressive and irrelevant. Defendant also claims that responding to

18

this request may involve the production of information which must remain confidential by the

19

terms of the contract. Plaintiff claims that it is relevant to the pending PAGA claim which is

20

representative in nature.

21

Request for Production No. 74

Defendant is correct that the nearly identical request was denied by a prior Magistrate

22

Judge. (Doc. No. 46 at 7). At that time the Magistrate Judge determined the request to be

23

overbroad and vague, “[u]ntil the Court has defined the Class that is to be certified . . . .” Id. Class

24

certification ultimately was denied in this case yet Plaintiff now seeks the same discovery claiming

25

relevance to her representative PAGA claim. Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the

26

issue of whether a PAGA claim must meet the certification standards for a class action under

27

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, a District Judge of this Court recently held that Rule 23 does apply to PAGA

28
-3-

09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

1

claims. See Ivey v. Apogen Technologies, Inc., 2011 WL 3515936 (S.D. Cal.). Consequently, no

2

class having been certified in this case, this Court will re-affirm the prior Magistrate Judge’s ruling

3

that the requested discovery is overbroad, vague and intrudes into confidential agreements.

4

And, having reviewed the matter independently, this Court agrees with Defendant that the

5

request is overbroad and vague. Contracts which “relate” to the job duties performed by NDCAs is

6

too ambiguous to provide meaningful direction to Defendant. Even disclosure of contract terms

7

purporting to define the job duties of NDCAs in connection with a given contract may not be

8

relevant. The relevant concern is the job duties actually performed by NDCAs, not how they are

9

described in third party contracts. Plaintiff concedes as much. (Doc. No. 102 at 9). No response

10

is required.

11

4.

Request for Production No. 75

12

Plaintiff requests all documents submitted or filled out by NDCAs during the relevant

13

period using any electronic ticketing systems. This request is substantially similar to a request

14

previously ruled upon by a prior Magistrate Judge. (See Doc. Nos. 59, 61). The Magistrate Judge

15

found the similar request to be:

16
17

overbroad and oppressive at this stage of discovery (and perhaps at all stages of
discovery). The discovery sought, and the reasons given for seeking such
discovery, may be ascertained by less obtrusive means, such as deposition.

18

(Doc. No. 61). With class certification denied, and for the reasons expressed above regarding RFP

19

No. 74, this Court will affirm the prior ruling. Moreover, the relevance of this request is not

20

obvious. Plaintiff claims that this discovery will tend to show what duties the NDCAs actually

21

performed. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has deposed Defendant, under Rule 30(b)(6), on this

22

issue and learned that only a minority of the work of the NDCAs is driven by tickets. (Doc. No.

23

103 at 4). Defendant also states that it had numerous electronic ticketing systems in use during the

24

relevant period and that it does not keep records of the various ticketing systems that may be

25

accessed by every qualified employee. (Doc. No. 102 at 16). The Court agrees with Defendant

26

that to the extent there is any relevance to this request, it is outweighed substantially by the burden

27

of production. No further response is required.

28
-4-

09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

1
2

Conclusion
Any discovery ordered above must be provided no later than thirty (30) days from the date

3

of the entry of this Order.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED:

5

DATED: October 5, 2011

6
7
8

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

09cv1669 WQH (MDD)