Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' 85 Motion to Compel Discovery and Contact Information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 12/12/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

PAULA DITTMAR and PAULINE
TILTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

15
16
17
18
19

Case No.: 14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND CONTACT INFORMATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION,

[ECF No. 85]
Defendant.

20
21

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery and Contact

22

Information. (ECF No. 85.) Also before the Court is Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’

23

motion (ECF No. 86), Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Opposition (ECF No. 89), and the

24

supplemental declarations of Joanne Lawson (ECF No. 91) and Plaintiff Paula Dittmar

25

(ECF No. 92). A hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion was held on December 6, 2016. (See ECF

26

No. 93.) Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents presented and

27

the parties’ oral arguments, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is

28

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
1
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

A.

3

Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action by filing a complaint in the San Diego

4

Superior Court on April 3, 2014. (ECF No. 1-1.) The case was removed to this Court on

5

May 7, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on July 21,

6

2016 (ECF No. 71). Plaintiffs seek to represent the following two proposed classes in this

7

action:

8
9

Procedural History

Pharmacist Class: All current and former non-exempt pharmacists
employed by Defendants within the State of California within the period four
years prior to the date of the filing of this action.

10
11
12
13

Department Manager Class: All current and former non-exempt
managers of any department at Defendants’ business who were employed by
Defendants in California within the period four years prior to the date of the
filing of this action.

14

(Id. at 6–7.) Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, Defendant failed to pay the

15

Pharmacist Class and Department Manager Class all compensation due to them for time

16

spent under their employers’ control, as well as payment due for overtime work and

17

premiums due for noncompliant meal and rest periods. (Id. at 4.)

18

In support of their putative class claims, Plaintiffs seek from Defendant discovery

19

and contact information for the majority of the members of the putative state-wide classes.

20

(ECF No. 85-1 at 4.) Defendant objects to providing this information to Plaintiffs, arguing

21

that Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing that they are entitled to California-wide

22

discovery on any of their claims. (ECF No. 86 at 12–15.) The instant motion seeks to

23

clarify the proper scope of discovery at this stage of the case.
Defendant’s Corporate Structure

24

B.

25

Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant” or “Costco”) divides its

26

United States warehouses into three geographic divisions: (1) Northern; (2) Eastern; and

27

(3) Southwest. (ECF No. 86 at 6.) The Costco warehouses located in California fall within

28

the Northern and Southwest Divisions. (Id.) These two divisions encompass six smaller
2
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

geographic regions: (1) Northwest; (2) Midwest; (3) Bay Area; (4) Los Angeles; (5) San

2

Diego; and (6) Texas regions. (Id.) All California Costco warehouses exist within the Bay

3

Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego regions. (Id.) Plaintiff Dittmar worked in the Lake

4

Elsinore and Morena Boulevard warehouses in the San Diego region. (ECF No. 85-3 at

5

¶ 1; ECF No. 86 at 6.) Plaintiff Tilton worked in the Victorville warehouse in the Los

6

Angeles Region. (ECF No. 85-4 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 86 at 6.) All warehouses in which

7

Plaintiffs worked are located in the Southwest Division. (ECF No. 86 at 6.)

8

Each Costco warehouse has a number of independent ancillary businesses, such as,

9

for example, the Tire, Bakery, Delicatessen, and Pharmacy Departments, and each

10

ancillary business has its own regional organization.

11

pharmacies, warehouse Pharmacy Managers, such as Plaintiffs Dittmar and Tilton, report

12

to Regional Pharmacy Supervisors, and Regional Pharmacy Supervisors report to

13

Divisional Assistant Vice Presidents of Pharmacies. (Id.) Plaintiff Dittmar’s Regional

14

Pharmacy Supervisor in the San Diego Region was Kevin Lee, and then Brad Heiner. (Id.)

15

Plaintiff Tilton’s Regional Pharmacy Supervisor in the Los Angeles Region was Barry

16

Meizel. (Id. at 6–7.) Kevin Lee, Brad Heiner, and Barry Meizel’s supervisor was Joanne

17

Lawson, Assistant Vice President of Pharmacies for the Southwest Division. (Id. at 7.)

(Id.) With respect to Costco

18

There are approximately 120 Costco warehouses in California. (ECF No. 86-3 at

19

¶ 5.) Of these warehouses, approximately 65 are located in the San Diego and Los Angeles

20

Regions in the Southwest Division.

21

Defendant, Kevin Lee, and then Brad Heiner, supervised the following 15 California

22

warehouses in the San Diego Region: (1) El Centro; (2) Vista; (3) Morena Boulevard; (4)

23

Santee; (5) San Diego (Carmel Mountain Road); (6) Rancho Del Rey; (7) Carlsbad; (8) La

24

Mesa; (9) S.E. San Diego (Gateway Center Drive); (10) Mission Valley; (11) Temecula;

25

(12) Lake Elsinore; (13) Poway; (14) Chula Vista; and (15) San Marcos. (ECF No. 91 at

26

¶ 2–3.) During Plaintiff Tilton’s employment with Defendant, Barry Meizel supervised

27

the following 28 California warehouses in the Los Angeles Region: (1) Santa Maria; (2)

28

Canoga Park (now Woodland Hills); (3) Van Nuys; (4) Westlake Village; (5) Simi Valley;

During Plaintiff Dittmar’s employment with

3
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

(6) Los Feliz; (7) Norwalk; (8) Azusa; (9) Oxnard; (10) Alhambra; (11) Northridge; (12)

2

Santa Clarita; (13) Montebello; (14) Goleta; (15) Torrance; (16) Culver City; (17) SW

3

Bakersfield; (18) Hawthorne; (19) Burbank; (20) City of Industry; (21) Bakersfield; (22)

4

San Luis Obispo; (23) Lancaster; (24) Inglewood; (25) La Habra; (26) Victorville; (27)

5

San Dimas; and (28) Pacoima.1 (Id. at ¶ 4.) The approximately 22 remaining California

6

warehouses in the Southwest Division are supervised by other Regional Pharmacy

7

Managers, including B.J. Min. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

8

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery

10

“regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed.

11

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in

12

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The relevance standard is thus recognized commonly as

13

one that is necessarily broad in scope in order to “encompass any matter that bears on, or

14

that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in

15

the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman

16

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). However, relevancy is not without “ultimate and

17

necessary boundaries.” Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507. Accordingly, district courts have broad

18

discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

19

732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

20

The Ninth Circuit has held that often putative class action pleadings alone will not

21

resolve the question of class certification and that some pre-certification discovery will be

22

warranted. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009).

23

District courts have broad discretion to control the class certification process, and whether

24

discovery is permitted lies within the sound discretion of the court. Id. (quoting Kamm v.

25
26
1

27
28

In May 2013, after Plaintiff Tilton ceased working for Defendant, seven of the warehouses under
Barry Meizel’s supervision were transferred to a different Los Angeles Regional Pharmacy Supervisor.
(ECF No. 91 at 7.) For purposes of this Order, any reference to the warehouses supervised by Barry
Meizel refers to the 28 warehouses he supervised while Plaintiff Tilton worked for Defendant.
4
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir. 1975)). In determining whether a court

2

should allow pre-certification discovery, the plaintiff bears the burden of advancing a prima

3

facie showing that the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are

4

satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Id.

5

(citing Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424–25 (9th Cir. 1985); Doninger v. Pac. Nw.

6

Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977)). Absent some factual basis for a plaintiff’s

7

claims that defendant’s alleged wrongs are class-wide, plaintiffs are not entitled to class-

8

wide discovery; and the plaintiff cannot rely on the bare allegations of the complaint to

9

support class-wide discovery. See Tracy v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 185 F.R.D. 303, 305

10

(D. Col. 1998); see, e.g., Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., No. 11-cv-1301-MMA (DHB),

11

2013 WL 2896884, at *9 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (denying plaintiff’s request for

12

discovery from other offices where evidence did not substantiate plaintiff’s allegations that

13

the class extended beyond locations where plaintiff worked); Franco v. Bank of America,

14

No. 09-cv-1364 LAB (BLM), 2009 WL 8729265, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2009) (same).

15

III.

DISCUSSION
Defendant’s Procedural Objections

16

A.

17

Before addressing the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendant’s opposition argues

18

that Plaintiffs’ motion should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone. (ECF No. 86 at

19

8–10.) The Court rejects Defendant’s arguments for the following reasons.

20

1.

Failure to Meet and Confer

21

Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because Plaintiffs

22

failed to comply with both this Court’s Local Rules and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers

23

Rules, which require counsel to meet and confer on discovery issues before filing discovery

24

motions with the Court. (ECF No. 86 at 8–9.) This argument is without merit.

25

A telephonic Case Management Conference for this action was held on September

26

27, 2016. (See ECF No. 82.) During the Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel brought to the

27

Court’s attention that the parties dispute the appropriate geographic scope of class

28

certification discovery and whether discovery should reach to managers of Costco
5
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

departments beyond Costco Pharmacy Departments. These issues were also raised in the

2

parties’ Amended Joint Discovery Plan filed in anticipation of the Case Management

3

Conference. (See ECF No. 80 at 3–5.) It appeared the disputed issues would likely hinder

4

the progress of this case, and the parties agreed the issue was ripe for resolution. Therefore,

5

the undersigned invited the parties to immediately brief their disputed issues with respect

6

to the scope of initial discovery. Neither party raised any objection at that time. It should

7

have been obvious to Defendant that by virtue of the Court’s inviting opposing briefing

8

from the parties, there was no longer an obligation to meet and confer on these specific

9

issues in dispute. Accordingly, Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs’ motion should be

10

denied on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to meet and confer prior to filing their motion is

11

without merit.

12

2.

Failure to Specify Document Requests and Acknowledge Objections

13

Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because Plaintiffs

14

ignore Rule IV.D.1 of the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rules, which requires movants to

15

specify each discovery dispute, why discovery is needed, the legal basis for that view, and

16

the legal basis for objections. This argument is also without merit. As discussed during

17

the September 27, 2016 Case Management Conference, the undersigned requested that the

18

parties’ briefs discuss only the broad, threshold issues of: (1) whether discovery should be

19

limited to particular warehouses; and (2) whether discovery should be limited to particular

20

departments within the warehouses. The parties were not invited to address any disputes

21

arising from specific discovery requests and objections at this time. Accordingly, any

22

argument that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied for failure to specify particular document

23

requests and acknowledge Defendant’s objections to specific discovery requests is without

24

merit.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
6
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1
2
3

B.

Scope of Discovery
1.

Pharmacist Class
i.

Failure to Pay for Off-the-Clock Work

4

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to California-wide discovery with respect to

5

Defendant’s alleged failure to pay the putative Pharmacist Class for off-the-clock work.

6

(ECF No. 85-1 at 11–12.) Defendant disagrees, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to show

7

that they are entitled to any discovery with respect to this putative Pharmacist Class claim.

8

(ECF No. 86 at 14.)

9

In support of their claim, Plaintiffs assert that: (1) Joanne Lawson stated in Plaintiff

10

Dittmar’s presence that she was aware that pharmacists were working off-the-clock

11

throughout her “area” (ECF No. 85-3 at ¶ 2); (2) Kevin Lee stated in Plaintiff Dittmar’s

12

presence that he was aware that pharmacists at other stores in his region were working off

13

the clock (id.); (3) Brad Heiner told Plaintiff Dittmar and other full-time pharmacists at the

14

Morena Boulevard warehouse that they were expected to do “more with less,” meaning to

15

do more work in less hours (id. at ¶ 8; ECF No. 92 at ¶ 7); (4) pharmacist Vijay Khanna

16

told Plaintiff Dittmar that he worked off-the-clock at Costco’s Carlsbad warehouse (ECF

17

No. 85-3 at ¶ 16; ECF No. 92 at ¶ 6); and (5) pharmacist Chen Hwang told Plaintiff Tilton

18

that she worked off-the-clock at Costco’s Victorville warehouse. (ECF No. 85-4 at ¶ 6.)

19

Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to this putative Pharmacy Class claim is GRANTED

20

in part. Based on the statements purportedly made by Kevin Lee and Joanne Lawson,

21

considered in conjunction with the statements of Vijay Khanna and Chen Hwang that they

22

worked off-the-clock in two separate warehouses under Joanne Lawson’s supervision, the

23

Court is persuaded that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of Plaintiffs’ allegation

24

that Defendant failed to pay pharmacists for off-the-clock work. See Vinole, 571 F.3d at

25

942. The Court is also persuaded that based on this evidence, Plaintiffs are entitled to

26

discovery on this claim beyond the two warehouses in which they worked. Accordingly,

27

the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to seek discovery related to off-the-clock

28

work from pharmacists who work, or formerly worked within the class period, at all
7
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

California warehouses located in Costco’s Southwest Division. To the extent Defendant

2

has not already done so, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with a written list of the WHSE

3

number, name, and address of each California Costco warehouse located within the

4

Southwest Division on or before December 19, 2016.

5

As Plaintiffs provided no evidence that Defendant allegedly failed to pay

6

pharmacists for off-the-clock work at any California warehouse outside of the Southwest

7

Division, at this stage of the proceedings and with respect to this claim, any request that

8

the Court compel Defendant to provide contact information or other discovery for

9

pharmacists who work or worked in California warehouses outside of the Southwest

10

Division is DENIED. See Coleman, 2013 WL 2896884, at *9; Tracy, 185 F.R.D. at 305.

11

ii.

Failure to Provide Required Rest Breaks

12

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to California-wide discovery with respect to

13

Defendant’s alleged failure to pay premiums to the putative Pharmacist Class for failing to

14

provide certain legally required rest breaks. (ECF No. 85-1 at 11–12.) Specifically,

15

Plaintiffs allege that it is Defendant’s practice to schedule only one pharmacist per

16

warehouse on Saturdays, and this practice prohibits pharmacists from taking the 10-minute

17

rest breaks to which they are entitled. (ECF No. 85-3 at ¶ 17; ECF No. 85-4 at ¶ 8.)

18

Defendant disagrees, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are entitled to

19

discovery with respect to this putative Pharmacist Class claim outside of the warehouses

20

in which they worked. (ECF No. 86 at 15.)

21

In support of their claim, both Plaintiff Dittmar and Tilton stated in their written

22

declarations that, “[w]hile we closed the pharmacy for lunch breaks, it was very hard to

23

close the pharmacy for ten minute rest breaks. We could not close the pharmacy while

24

customers were waiting. On weekends, customers were almost always present.” (ECF No.

25

85-3 at ¶ 17; ECF No. 85-4 at ¶ 8.) In addition, at the December 6, 2016 hearing, Plaintiffs’

26

counsel stated that Deana Mortarana, a Pharmacy Manager at Costco’s Santee warehouse,

27

testified at her deposition that she was unable to take approximately 70% of her 10-minute

28

rest breaks on Saturdays due to Defendant’s practice of scheduling a single pharmacist at
8
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

the Santee warehouse on Saturdays. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated during the

2

hearing that Plaintiffs have discovered through other depositions that Defendant’s practice

3

of scheduling a single pharmacist per warehouse on Saturdays was a widespread practice

4

within the San Diego and Los Angeles Regions.

5

Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to this putative Pharmacy Class claim is GRANTED

6

in part. While Plaintiffs’ moving papers do little to justify their entitlement to discovery

7

on this issue, the Court is persuaded by the deposition testimony of Deana Mortarana and

8

others that discovery is likely to substantiate this Pharmacy Class claim. See Vinole, 571

9

F.3d at 942. As Deana Mortarana and Plaintiff Dittmar reported similar Saturday rest break

10

experiences while working at separate warehouses under the common supervision of Kevin

11

Lee and Brad Heiner, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to seek discovery

12

related to this issue from pharmacists who work, or formerly worked within the class

13

period, at the 15 California warehouses that were supervised by Kevin Lee and Brad

14

Heiner. In addition, as Plaintiff Tilton reported similar Saturday rest break experiences to

15

those of Plaintiff Dittmar and Deana Mortarana, Plaintiffs may seek discovery on this

16

matter from pharmacists who work, or formerly worked within the class period, at the

17

Victorville warehouse.2

18

As Plaintiffs provided no evidence that Defendant allegedly failed to provide

19

pharmacists with legally required 10-minute rest breaks on Saturdays at any California

20

warehouse beyond the warehouses specified above, at this stage of the proceedings and

21

with respect to this claim, Plaintiffs’ request that the Court compel Defendant to provide

22

contact information or other discovery for pharmacists who work or worked in California

23

warehouses beyond these specific warehouses is DENIED. See Coleman, 2013 WL

24

2896884, at *9; Tracy, 185 F.R.D. at 305.

25

///

26
27
28

2

As Costco Pharmacy Managers often work as pharmacists (ECF No. 91 at ¶ 6; ECF No. 92 at
¶ 5), for purposes of discovery related to rest breaks, Pharmacy Managers are to be considered pharmacists
with respect to shifts that they worked as pharmacists.
9
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

2.

Department Manager Class

2

Plaintiffs contend their evidence establishes that they are entitled to California-wide

3

discovery with respect to Defendant’s alleged failure to pay the putative Department

4

Manager Class for off-the-clock work. (ECF No. 85-1 at 11–12.) Defendant disagrees,

5

arguing that Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery that relates, at most, to Pharmacy

6

Department Managers working off-the-clock at a few warehouses in the San Diego Region

7

and to Non-Pharmacy Department Managers working off-the-clock at the Morena

8

Boulevard warehouse only. (ECF No. 86 at 12–15.) While Plaintiffs define the putative

9

Department Manager Class to include both Pharmacy Department Managers and Non-

10

Pharmacy Department Managers, for purposes of determining the proper scope of

11

discovery at this time, the Court finds it necessary to distinguish between the two.

12

i.

Pharmacy Department Managers

13

In support of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to pay Pharmacy Department

14

Managers for off-the-clock work at all California Costco warehouses, Plaintiff Dittmar

15

asserts that Pharmacy Department Managers from warehouses other than the Morena

16

Boulevard warehouse, specifically Jennifer Ahn, Deana Mortarana, Deborah McElravy,

17

and Jennifer Mann, confirmed that they understood Costco’s “manager’s code” to mean

18

working off-the-clock in order to complete the work assigned to them.3 (ECF No. 85-3 at

19

¶ 5.) In addition, Plaintiff Dittmar asserts that Pharmacy Department Managers from

20

warehouses other than the Morena Boulevard warehouse, specifically Debbie Grannick,

21

Thu-Anh Ly, and Deana Mortarana, told her that they regularly worked off-the-clock. (Id.

22

at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff Tilton asserts that Pharmacy Department Managers in various Orange

23

County warehouses, specifically Natalia Youseff, Neel Nehta, Tony, and Joycelyn Pham,

24

told her that they had too much work to complete during their shifts but that they were not

25

supposed to bill overtime hours. (ECF No. 85-4 at ¶ 7.)

26
27
28

Plaintiff Dittmar alleges in her motion that Costco’s “manager’s code” meant managers were to
complete the work assigned to them within budget by working overtime without pay. (ECF No. 85-1 at
6–7.)
3

10
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to this claim is GRANTED in part. Based on the

2

evidence above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that

3

discovery is likely to substantiate Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to pay Pharmacy

4

Department Managers for off-the-clock work. See Vinole, 571 F.3d at 942. However,

5

Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving that they are entitled to California-wide

6

discovery on this claim. First, the Court is not persuaded that the Orange County Pharmacy

7

Department Managers’ stating that they had too much work to complete during their

8

regular shifts means that they actually worked off-the-clock. Second, the Pharmacy

9

Department Managers who reported to Plaintiff Dittmar that they understood the

10

“manager’s code” to mean they were required to work off-the-clock or that they regularly

11

worked off-the-clock all worked only at warehouses in the San Diego and Los Angeles

12

Regions and under the supervision of Regional Pharmacy Supervisors Brad Heiner, Barry

13

Meizel, and B.J. Min.4 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to seek

14

discovery on this issue only from Pharmacy Department Managers who work, or formerly

15

worked within the class period, at California warehouses that were or are supervised by

16

Kevin Lee, Brad Heiner, Barry Meizel,5 and B.J. Min. To the extent that Defendant has

17

not already done so, by December 19, 2016, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with a

18

written list of the WHSE number, name, and address of each California Costco warehouse

19

that is, or was within the relevant class period, under the supervision of B.J. Min.

20

As Plaintiffs provided no evidence that Defendant allegedly failed to pay Pharmacy

21

Department Managers for off-the-clock work at any warehouse outside of the supervision

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that: (1) Jennifer Ahn worked at the Carmel Valley warehouse and
reported to Brad Heiner (ECF No. 92 at ¶ 8); (2) Deana Mortarana worked at the Santee warehouse and
reported to Brad Heiner (id.); (3) Deborah McElravy worked at the La Mesa warehouse and reported to
Brad Heiner (id.); (4) Jennifer Mann worked at the Goleta warehouse and reported to either Barry Meizel
or B.J. Min (id. at ¶ 9); (5) Debbie Grannick worked at the San Marcos warehouse and reported to Brad
Heiner (ECF No. 85-3 at ¶ 14; ECF No. 92 at ¶ 7); and (6) Thu-Anh Ly worked at the La Mesa warehouse,
reporting to Brad Heiner, and at the Irvine warehouse, reporting to B.J. Min (ECF No. 85-3 at ¶ 14; ECF
No. 91 at ¶ 10; ECF No. 92 at 7).
5
See note 1, supra.
11
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

of Kevin Lee, Brad Heiner, Barry Meizel, or B.J. Min, at this stage of the proceedings and

2

with respect to this claim, Plaintiffs’ request that the Court compel Defendant to provide

3

contact information or other discovery for Pharmacy Department Managers who work or

4

worked in a California Costco warehouse not specified above is DENIED. See Coleman,

5

2013 WL 2896884, at *9; Tracy, 185 F.R.D. at 305.

6

ii.

Non-Pharmacy Department Managers

7

In support of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to pay Non-Pharmacy

8

Department Managers for off-the-clock work at all California Costco warehouses, Plaintiff

9

Dittmar asserts that she spoke with other Department Managers, including the

10

Delicatessen, Merchandise, Tire, Bakery, and Food Court Managers, at the Morena

11

Boulevard warehouse and told her they understood Costco’s “manager code” to mean

12

working off-the-clock in order to complete the work assigned to them. (ECF No. 85-3 at

13

¶ 5.) In addition, Plaintiff Dittmar asserts that she was told by Jeanne Rosolino and Kevin

14

Perriera, the General Manager and Assistant General Manager at the Morena Boulevard

15

warehouse, to clock out for a 30-minute period while she attended a managers’ meeting.

16

(Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff Dittmar further contends that several other department managers who

17

attended that meeting stated that they were working off-the-clock as well. (Id.)

18

Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to this claim is GRANTED in part. Based on the

19

evidence above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that

20

discovery is likely to substantiate Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to pay Non-

21

Pharmacy Department Managers for off-the-clock work. See Vinole, 571 F.3d at 942.

22

However, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving they are entitled to California-

23

wide discovery on this claim. As Plaintiff Dittmar testified at her deposition that she is not

24

affirmatively aware of any non-exempt managers working off-the-clock or being told to

25

work off-the-clock at warehouses other than the Morena Boulevard warehouse (ECF No.

26

86-2 at 17–19), Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek discovery on this issue from Non-

27

Pharmacy Department Managers who work or worked only in warehouses other than the

28

Morena Boulevard warehouse. Based on the evidence Plaintiffs provided, Plaintiffs may
12
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)

1

seek discovery related to off-the-clock work only from the Morena Boulevard warehouse’s

2

ancillary business managers and merchandise manager(s).

3

As Plaintiffs provided no evidence that Defendant allegedly failed to pay Non-

4

Pharmacy Department Managers for off-the-clock work at any warehouse outside of the

5

Morena Boulevard warehouse, at this stage of the proceedings and with respect to this

6

claim, any request that Defendant be compelled to produce contact information or other

7

discovery for Non-Pharmacy Department Managers beyond those specified above is

8

DENIED. See Coleman, 2013 WL 2896884, at *9; Tracy, 185 F.R.D. at 305.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2016

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
14-cv-1156 LAB (JLB)