Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Filing
183
ORDER Re 173 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute (Rule 30(b)(6) Topics). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 4/26/2017. (ag)
1
2
APR H 2017
3
Qn. .^-kHK US UISjHICI COUH F
SOUTHtHN DIS7.H/T OF CALIFORNIA
(NlK
DfcPUTY
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Case No.: 09cv2051-MMA(KSC)
NYKEYA KILBY,
12
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
13
[Doc. No. 173]
v.
14
ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE (RULE 30(b)(6) TOPICS)
CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
15
16
17
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
18
Dispute. [Doc. No. 173.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling
19
defendant to make witnesses available for deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
20
Procedure 30(b)(6) to testify about six different topics. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 4.] For the
21
reasons outlined below, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling
22
defendant to make Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses available for deposition must be DENIED.
f
23
24
Discussion
A.
Timeliness of Plaintiffs Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition.
i
25
“A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without
26
leave of court....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(1). “In its notice or subpoena, a party may name
27
as the deponent a ... corporation,... or other entity and must describe with reasonable
28
particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate
l
09cv205 l-MMA(KSC)
1
one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who
2
consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person
3
designated will testify.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). “A party who wants to depose a person
4
by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party....”
5
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1) (emphasis added).
6
The parties’ papers indicate plaintiff served defendant with her “Fourth 30(b)(6)
7
Notice of Deposition” on February 17, 2017, just ten calendar days before the
8
February 27, 2017 deadline for completing class-related discovery. [Doc. No. 159; Doc.
9
No. 173, at p. 10; Doc. No. 173-2 (Exh. 1), at pp. 1-6; Doc. No. 173-7, at p. 3.] Based
10
on the number and scope of topics included in the February 17, 2017 Notice and the
11
February 27, 2017 deadline for completing class-related discovery, the Court finds that
12
plaintiff failed to provide defendant with “reasonable written notice” as required by
13
Federal Rule 30(b)(1).
14
For the same reasons, the Court also finds that plaintiff’s Notice was untimely
15
under the Court’s Scheduling Order of September 13, 2016. [Doc. No. 159.] The
16
Scheduling Order provides that discovery under Rule 30 “must be initiated a sufficient
17
period of time in advance of the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service,
18
notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” [Doc. No. 159,
19
at p. 1.] As defendant explains in the Joint Motion, it was unreasonable for plaintiff to
20
expect defendant to compile all of the necessary data, locate and prepare competent
21
witnesses, and then appear for depositions of the scope requested in just ten calendar
22
days before the expiration of the deadline for completing class discovery. [Doc. No.
23
173, atpp. 10, 15-17, et seq.\
24
B.
25
Deposition.
26
1.
27
Topic Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 41 in plaintiff’s Deposition Notice seek information
28
Scone of Discovery Requested in Plaintiffs Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of
Tonic Nos. 37, 38, 39, and 41.
about employees who work or have worked in six different CVS stores located in San
2
09cv2051 -MMA(KSC)
1
Diego County during the class period (June 9, 2008 to the present). [Doc. No. 173, at
2
p. 4.] At plaintiff’s request and by agreement of the parties, plaintiff conducted a
3
physical inspection of these CVS stores on February 24, 2017. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 14;
4
Doc. No. 173-1, at pp. 4-5; Doc. No. 173-7, at p. 2.]
5
Specifically, Topic Nos. 37, 38, 39, and 41 seek an order compelling defendant to
6
make a witness or witnesses available to testify about the following: (1) the identities of
7
each clerk/cashier, store manager, store manager in training, operations manager, or shift
8
supervisor [Topic Nos. 37, 38]; (2) the identities of each clerk/cashier who used a seat
9
while working at the check stands; (3) the nature of any criticism of clerk/cashiers about
10
their performance while using a seat [Topic No. 39]; and (4) the identity of any
i
11
12
clerk/cashier who requested to use a seat [Topic No. 41]. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 5.]
Defendant argues, and the Court agrees, that the discovery plaintiff seeks is overly
13
burdensome. Defendant represents that identifying employees and former employees
14
who worked at the six stores would first require database searches. Then, to obtain the
15
remaining information that plaintiff seeks, defendant would need to: (1) interview about
16
331 current and former clerk/cashiers; (2) interview about 56 store managers; (3) review
17
each individual’s personnel file; and (4) possibly search and review numerous e-mails.
18
Many of the employees no longer work for defendant and may be difficult to contact.
19
Records do not exist to separate clerk/cashiers who operated cash registers from those
20
who did not. [Doc. No. 173, at pp. 16-23.]
21
Most of the information plaintiff seeks by way of the Deposition Notice is also
22
duplicative of other discovery that has already been produced or is in the process of
23
being produced. At this late date in the class discovery process, the Deposition Notice
24
further reveals an attempt by plaintiff to implement a whole new discovery strategy. In a
25
prior Joint Motion, plaintiff sought an order compelling defendant to provide further
26
responses to a number of very broadly worded discovery requests seeking the same or
27
similar documents and information as to all 9,600 CVS stores in the United States and/or
28
all 940 CVS stores in California. [Doc. No. 160, at pp. 1-48.] For example, plaintiffs
3
09cv2051 -MMA(KSC)
1
Interrogatory No. 23 sought the identity of “each Clerk/Cashier who was employed in
2
California at any time between June 9, 2008 and the present who operated a front-end
3
cash register for at least one pay period during that time.” [Doc. No. 182, at p. 8.] For
4
the reasons outlined in the Court’s Order of April 19, 2017, defendant was ordered to
5
update a list of putative class members that was previously produced to plaintiff in 2011
6
by providing plaintiff with a representative list of clerk/cashiers employed by defendant
7
in its California stores any time after the prior production^]
8
9-10.]
9
[. [Doc. No. 182, at pp.
Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 25 additionally sought the identity of “each
10
Clerk/Cashier anywhere in the United States who, at any time between June 9, 2008 and
11
the present, used a seat or stool while operating the cash register.” [Doc. No. 182, at p.
12
11 (emphasis added).] Subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Protective Order
13
[Doc. No. 62], the Court ordered defendant to identify all clerk/cashiers in its California
14
stores that have used or are using a seat or stool while operating a cash register from
15
June 9, 2008 to the present. [Doc. No. 182, at p. 12.] In addition, as outlined in the
16
parties’ prior Joint Motion [Doc. No. 160] and in the Court’s Order of April 19, 2017
17
[Doc. No. 182], defendant has already provided plaintiff with other discovery on this
18
topic. Defendant produced records from a Human Resources database showing requests
19
for seat accommodations and describing instances where California retail employees
20
requested the use of a seat. Defendant also made a Rule 30(b)(6) witness available to
21
testify at a deposition about responses received when an e-mail was sent out asking
22
whether requests had been received for a seat. [Doc. No. 160, at pp. 39,42; Doc. No.
23
182, at p. 14.]
24
Based on the moving and opposing arguments presented in this prior Joint Motion,
25
it is apparent that plaintiff was unwilling to narrow the scope of Interrogatory Nos. 23
26
and 25 and other broadly worded discovery requests that were disputed at the time.
27
[Doc. No. 160, at pp. 1-48.] Now, after the large amount of discovery on the same or
28
similar topics that defendant has already produced or is in the process of producing in
4
09cv205 l-MMA(KSC)
1
response to the Court’s Order of April 19, 2017 [Doc. No. 182], which narrowed the
2
scope of plaintiff’s overly broad discovery requests, plaintiff
3
re-focus class-related discovery in a different manner on employees at six specific stores
4
in San Diego County.
5
wants to narrow and
In this Court’s view, the time to narrow and re-focus class discovery in this new
6
and different manner was during meet and confer sessions the parties completed before
7
the prior Joint Motion [Doc. No. 160] was filed.1 To allow plaintiff to narrow and re
8
focus discovery now in this new and different manner would require the Court to re
9
open class-related discovery for several more months so that the parties could prepare
10
for and complete the broad scope of depositions plaintiff now seeks as to the six stores in
11
San Diego County. There is simply no good cause for doing so, particularly when
12
plaintiff’s Deposition Notice is untimely and seeks discovery that is essentially
13
duplicative. In this regard, the Court notes that the parties already had a seven-month
14
period of time in 2011 to complete class-related discovery. [Doc. Nos. 33,42.] The
15
current Scheduling Order, which was issued on September 13, 2016, allowed the parties
16
an additional five months until February 27, 2017 to update prior class-related discovery
17
completed in 2011, mostly to learn of any “changes” that occurred while the case was on
18
appeal. [Joint Discovery Plan, submitted on Sept. 7, 2016, at pp. 2-3.]
19
As far as the Court is aware, the only topic in this group that may not be
20
duplicative is Topic No. 38, which seeks testimony on the identification of store
21
managers, store managers in training, operations managers, or shift supervisors during
22
23
24
i
Once again, the Court expects a party seeking discovery to attempt to narrow the
25 scope of broadly worded requests during meet and confer sessions and to discuss any
such efforts in any moving papers seeking an order compelling further responses. For the
26 most part, plaintiff did not do so in connection with the prior Joint Motion [Doc. No. 160,
27 at pp. 1-48]. It is unlikely the prior Joint Motion of 48 pages [Doc. No. 160] would have
even been necessary if plaintiff previously offered to narrow the scope of its overly broad
28 discovery requests to six specific stores in San Diego.
5
09cv2051 -MMA(KSC)
1
the class period at the six CVS stores in San Diego County. Plaintiff argues that the
2
Court should compel defendant to make a witness available to identify these employees,
3
because managers who are not class members “are likely to have discoverable
4
information about defendant’s employment practices” and “whether the nature of the
5
work reasonably permits the use of seats.” [Doc. No. 173, at p. 7-8.]
6
Citing the privacy rights of third parties, defendant argues that the Court should not
7
order testimony on this topic, particularly when there is no reason to believe these
8
managers would have more or specialized knowledge about the use of seats in CVS
9
stores than putative class members who have already been identified or will be identified
10
in response to the Court’s Order of April 19, 2017 [Doc. No. 182]. [Doc. No. 173, at p.
11
19.] The Court agrees with defendant’s argument, which is essentially that the burden of
12
producing a witness on this topic exceeds its likely benefit. As outlined in the prior Joint
13
Motion [Doc. No. 160, atpp. 1-48]; the Court’s Order of April 19,2017 [Doc. No. 182];
14
and in the current Joint Motion [Doc. No. 173], plaintiff already has plenty of access to
15
information about defendant’s employment practices and the use of seats by
16
clerk/cashiers from other sources of discovery that have been produced or will soon be
17
produced in response to the Court’s Order of April 19, 2017 [Doc. No. 182],
18
In sum, under the circumstances presented, the Court will not re-open class-related
19
discovery to compel defendant to make Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses available to testify on
20
Topics 37, 38, 39, and 41 in response to plaintiff’s untimely Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of
21
Deposition. Without enforcement of the Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition, plaintiff
22
already has access to more than enough discovery to prepare and submit her second
23
motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for an
24
order compelling defendant to make Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses available for deposition to
25
testify about Topic Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 41 in the Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition
26
must be DENIED.
27
III
28
III
6
09cv2051 -MMA(KSC)
1
2.
2
Topic 40 in plaintiffs Deposition Notice seeks testimony about the identities of
Topic 40.
3
customers who have complained about any clerk/cashier using a seat while working at
4
the cash registers in six different CVS stores located in San Diego County during the
5
6
class period. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 5.] Plaintiff seeks testimony on this topic “to the
7
customers expect them to stand. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 8.]
8
extent” that defendant claims that clerk/cashiers should not be given seats because
For the reasons outlined by defendant in the current Joint Motion, this topic is
overly burdensome. It would require defendant to “hunt through” more than 300
9
10
personnel files to locate clerk/cashiers who used a seat and then determine whether there
11
were any customer complaints that relate to the use of the seat. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 21.]
12
In other words, defendant argues convincingly that the burden of producing a witness on
13
this topic exceeds its likely benefit. In addition, defendant argues convincingly that the
14
15
circumstances do not warrant an invasion of the privacy rights of third party customers
16
litigation as retaliation. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 21.] Given these concerns and the
17
untimeliness of plaintiff’s Deposition Notice, the Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled
18
to an order compelling defendant to make a Rule 30(b)(6) witness available to testify on
19
Topic 40.
20
who may have made complaints and could perceive the release of their identities in this
Defendant did offer during the meet and confer process to check its databases to
21
see if a customer ever lodged any sort of “complaint” about the use of a seat by a cashier
22
and “explain the situation” to plaintiff “without revealing names.” [Doc. No. 173, at p.
23
21.] Plaintiff was not satisfied with defendant’s offer. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 21.]
24
Without more, the relevance of any such customer complaints to class certification
25
issues is unclear. Although the Court will not now re-open class discovery for this
26
purpose, the Court’s Order on the current Joint Motion does not preclude plaintiff from
27
seeking information about customer complaints involving the use of a seats by cashiers
28
in a narrowly tailored request made during any time allowed for fact discovery following
7
09cv205 l-MMA(KSC)
1
a ruling on any motion related to class certification. In sum, the Court finds that
2
plaintiff’s request for an order compelling defendant to make Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses
3
available for deposition to testify about Topic No. 40 in the Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of
4
Deposition must be DENIED without prejudice.
5
3.
6
Topic 42 seeks testimony about the total number of pay periods worked by all
7
8
Topic 42.
clerk/cashiers at six CVS stores in San Diego County. [Doc. No. 173, at p. 5.]
According to plaintiff, “the number of pay periods worked by Clerk/Cashiers is relevant
9
10
to penalties under PAGA. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2) (penalties accrue at $100/$200
11
topic is overly broad as worded, because there are clerk/cashiers “who have never
12
13
operated a register during their employment with CVS.” [Doc. No. 173, at p. 23.]
14
issue of class damages rather than to class certification. It is true that class and fact
15
discovery are not bifurcated [Doc. No. 159, at p. 1], so nothing precluded plaintiff from
16
seeking this type of discovery during the time period permitted to complete class
17
discovery. However, given the untimeliness of plaintiffs Deposition Notice, the Court
18
will not re-open class discovery to permit plaintiff to pursue this type of discovery.
19
However, the Court’s Order on the current Joint Motion is not intended to preclude
20
plaintiff from seeking information about pay periods worked by clerk/cashiers in
21
defendant’s California stores in a narrowly tailored request made during any time
22
allowed for fact discovery following a ruling on any motion related to class certification.
23
In sum, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for an order compelling defendant to
24
make Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses available for deposition to testify about Topic No. 42 in
25
the Fourth 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition must be DENIED without prejudice.
26
III
27
III
28
III
per pay period per violation).” [Doc. No. 173, at p. 8.] As defendant contends, this
Without more, the information sought in Topic 42 appears to be relevant to the
8
09cv205 l-MMA(KSC)
1
2
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request in the
3
Joint Motion [Doc. No. 173] for an order compelling defendant to make Federal Rule
4
30(b)(6) witnesses available for deposition to testify about Topics 38, 39,40,41, and 42
5
is DENIED. This Order is without prejudice to plaintiff seeking discovery on Topics 40
6
and 42 in narrowly tailored discovery requests served during time allowed for fact
7
discovery following a ruling on any motions related to class certification.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 Dated: April 'L&. 2017
10
11
Hon. Karen S. Crawford
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
09cv205 l-MMA(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?