Frieri v. Sysco Corporation et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part #24 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 7/7/2017. (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

RICK FRIERI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public,

13
14
15
16

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JOINT
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION
OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 1

Plaintiff,
v.
SYSCO CORPORATION; SYSCO SAN
DIEGO, INC.; AND DOES 1-100,

(ECF No. 24)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery

21

Dispute No. 1. ECF No. 24.1 Having considered the arguments presented by both parties

22

and for the reasons set forth herein and as detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART

23

and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

24

interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
///

25
26
27
1

28

The parties are cautioned that any further discovery disputes submitted must include a
Joint Statement that is compliant with Judge Stormes Civil Procedures, No. 5.
1
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

I.

2

Background
This case presents a putative class action of truck drivers for alleged wage and

3

hour violations while employed as drivers for defendant Sysco San Diego, Inc. and/or

4

Sysco Corporation. See ECF No. 15. Plaintiff alleges violations on behalf of a state-

5

wide putative class, and seeks discovery to support certification. ECF Nos. 15, 24.

6

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due to be filed by November 10, 2017. ECF

7

No. 30.

8

Plaintiffs propounded five interrogatories and forty-eight requests for production of

9

documents to defendant Sysco San Diego, Inc. (hereafter “Defendant”) on February 14,

10

2017. ECF No. 24-1, ¶ 4. Plaintiff’s interrogatories and document requests seek, inter

11

alia, contact information relating to the putative class members; policies applicable to

12

meal and rest breaks; information about the structure and relationship of Defendant to

13

Sysco Corporation; and communications or emails relating to any and all of these

14

categories.

15

Defendant served verified responses on May 5, 2017. ECF No. 24-1, ¶ 8, Exs. 1-3.

16

Defendant’s responses to interrogatories contained objections, as well as responses

17

limited to the facility where Plaintiff was employed. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 1. Defendant’s

18

responses to requests for production of documents broadly fell into three categories: (1)

19

objections only, (2) objections with a response that documents will be produced under a

20

protective order;2 (3) objections with a response that there are no responsive documents

21

in Defendant’s possession, custody or control. ECF No. 24-1, Exs. 2-3.

22

The parties met and conferred. As a result, Defendant agreed to supplement some

23

responses, produced some documents, and requested search parameters for those requests

24

involving email. ECF No. 24 at 2-3. Defendant represents it is also waiting for some

25
26
27
2

28

The Court entered a protective order on June 14, 2017. ECF No. 23. Accordingly, this
condition is now moot and not further addressed in this order.
2
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

responsive documents to be provided, and will produce upon receipt. See ECF No. 24 at

2

3.

3

By this discovery dispute, Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to the interrogatories

4

and production of documents for the alleged putative class, without limitation to the

5

facility where Plaintiff worked. ECF No. 24 at 7. Plaintiff argues that the objections

6

raised by Defendant in response to the interrogatories and document requests are

7

meritless, and that further production and complete responses are required. ECF No. 24

8

at 13-20. Defendant counters that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad, and that Plaintiff

9

worked at a single facility in Palm Springs which closed 1 year into the proposed 5 year

10

class period, and thus cannot support the broad scope of discovery. ECF No. 24 at 8.

11

Defendant seeks to limit the scope of the requests and attendant production accordingly,

12

and argues responses are complete with this limitation in place and that its objections are

13

appropriate. Id. at 8-20.

14
15

II.

Discussion
Rule 26 permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

16

party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

17

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'

18

relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the

19

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

20

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information need not

21

be admissible to be discoverable. Id. Once the propounding party establishes that the

22

request seeks relevant information, “[t]he party who resists discovery has the burden to

23

show discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and

24

supporting its objections.” Superior Commc'ns v. Earhugger, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 215, 217

25

(C.D. Cal. 2009); see Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)

26

(requiring defendants “to carry heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied”).

27
28

In the class action context, the Ninth Circuit has addressed the question of precertification class discovery on several occasions and concluded “[o]ur cases stand for the
3
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

unremarkable proposition that often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of

2

class certification and that some discovery will be warranted.” Vinole v. Countrywide

3

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

4
5

Here, the parties are in agreement that some of pre-certification discovery is
appropriate, but dispute the proper scope.

6

A. Scope of Discovery

7

Plaintiff argues that the pleadings allege uniform illegal policies in place at all of

8

Sysco’s California operating companies and a state-wide class sufficient to justify all the

9

discovery sought. See, ECF No. 24 at 7. Plaintiff cites to several cases in different

10

procedural postures than this case, but that indicate a single class representative may

11

pursue discovery on a class basis despite potential differences between the class

12

representative and the prospective class members.3
Defendant’s arguments, objections, and responses make clear that Defendant

13
14

challenges the Plaintiff’s ability to adequately represent a class. ECF No. 24 at 8; ECF

15

No. 24-1, Exs. 1-3. Defendant argues that Plaintiff worked at a single facility, driving a

16

single route, for a relatively short period of time and so, discovery is properly limited to

17

only the location where Plaintiff worked. ECF 24 at 8-9. Defendant provided responses

18

to interrogatories based on this interpretation and its belief that this is the proper scope of

19

class. See ECF No. 24-1, Exs. 1-3. Defendant argues this interpretation is correct and

20

thus, the responses are adequate. ECF No. 24 at 9. Defendant points to authority

21

presenting other discovery disputes in this District and Circuit that limit discovery to the

22
23
3

24
25
26
27
28

Reyes v. CVS Pharm., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00964 MJS, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 111188, 2014 WL
3938865, (E.D. Cal, Aug. 8, 2014) primarily addresses the timeliness of removal of a class action and
looks at the interpretation of scope of the class in that context; not in the propriety of the discovery
requests. However, there the court disagreed with defendant’s interpretation that because the class
representative worked in the distribution center, the class was limited to distribution center employees.
Church v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 137 F.R.D. 294, 308 (N.D. Cal. 1991) addresses notice and
the scope of subclasses in an age discrimination case. The court permitted notice to a subclass for all
persons affected by the allegedly discriminatory policy, despite that plaintiff and named representative
may not have suffered the same type of discrimination under that policy.
4
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

location where plaintiff was employed absent evidence supporting company-wide

2

violations. Id. at 9-10 (discussed below).

3

Discovery prior to class certification “is generally limited and in the discretion of

4

the court.” Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California, No. 1:15-CV-00842 AWI SAB,

5

2017 WL 495635, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (quoting Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236

6

F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006)). Plaintiff bears the burden of a prima facie showing

7

that the class action requirements of Rule 23 are either met or that discovery is likely to

8

substantiate the class allegations. Id. “Especially when the material is in the possession

9

of the defendant, the court should allow the plaintiff enough discovery to obtain evidence

10

as to whether a class action is maintainable.” Id. (citing Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc.,

11

564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977)). The court should consider “the need for discovery,

12

the time required, and the probability of discovery providing necessary factual

13

information” in exercising its discretion to allow or prohibit discovery. Doninger, 564

14

F.2d at 1313. However, if the plaintiff cannot meet the prima facie showing of the

15

requirements of Rule 23, “the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that discovery

16

measures re likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class allegations.”

17

Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California, 2017 WL 495635, at *2 (quoting Doninger,

18

564 F.2d at 1313).

19

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 pleading, as demonstrated

20

by survival of claims in response to a motion to dismiss. See, ECF Nos. 14, 15; Nguyen

21

v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 275 F.R.D. 503, 507 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (stating that survival

22

of a motion to dismiss necessarily demonstrates compliance with the prima facie

23

requirements). Accordingly, the burden remains with the Defendant as “[t]he party who

24

resists discovery… to show discovery should not be allowed….” Superior Commc'ns v.

25

Earhugger, Inc., 257 F.R.D. 215, 217 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

26

In a discovery dispute in Nguyen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., the defendant

27

satisfied its burden by citation to the plaintiff’s deposition which made clear that plaintiff

28

was unaware of the practices in any other facility and that the company’s policies were
5
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

proper. 275 F.R.D. at 507-08. In a discovery dispute before Judge Bartick of this district

2

in Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., the defendant cited to the plaintiff’s deposition

3

testimony where she relayed her own experiences but could not confirm the practices

4

elsewhere. No. 11-cv-1301-MMA-DHB, 2013 WL 2896884 at *9 (S.D. Cal. June 12,

5

2013). In Martinet v. Spherion Atlantic Enterprises, LLC, then Magistrate Judge

6

Battaglia of this district was presented with a defendant seeking a protective order to limit

7

discovery where Plaintiff was seeking to represent a state-wide class. Defendant pointed

8

to the plaintiff’s one month of employment at a single location to narrow the time and

9

scope of discovery to one year and solely the location where plaintiff worked. No. 07-cv-

10
11

1278-W-AJB, 2008 WL 2557490 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2008).
Here, Defendant raises similar arguments to seek to limit discovery, but has

12

offered no evidence to support its arguments in the form of deposition testimony,

13

policies, declarations, or other discovery responses from Plaintiff. Defendant simply

14

states that it has four facilities, one of which was the Palm Springs location from which

15

Plaintiff operated. ECF No. 24 at 9. Defendant argues that two of the present facilities

16

opened after Plaintiff’s employment had already concluded, rendering any violations

17

stemming from these locations speculative. Id. In addition, two former facilities have

18

closed, including the Palm Springs facility where Plaintiff was employed. Id. Defendant

19

argues that Plaintiff’s employment for approximately one year at the Palm Springs

20

facility does not support discovery on a state-wide basis where the Plaintiff’s experiences

21

“would likely have been impacted by the particular supervisor or trainer he worked with

22

in Palm Springs….” Id. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not presented evidence of

23

company-wide violations sufficient to justify company-wide discovery. Id. at 10. And

24

while Defendant avers that its policies are legally compliant, it has not put the policies

25

before this Court, or offered an explanation as to how or why enforcement of its legally

26

compliant company-wide policies could be affected by a “particular supervisor or trainer”

27

at the Palm Springs facility and not at any other location. Under these circumstances,

28

Defendant has not satisfied its burden to show that the discovery should not be permitted.
6
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

Nonetheless, Plaintiff propounded discovery to Defendant (i.e., Sysco San Diego,

2

Inc.) only. Defendant may respond for itself only. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (b)(1), 34(b)(2).

3

Plaintiff’s apparent inclusion of “related entities” in its definitions for interrogatories and

4

requests for documents does not, without more, require Defendant to locate or produce

5

information or documents for its parent company or other subsidiaries of the parent

6

company.4 See, e.g. ECF No. 24 at 16, line 26; LG Display Co. v. Chi Mei

7

Optroelectronics Corp., No. 08CV2408-L(POR), 2009 WL 223585, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan.

8

28, 2009) (“A subsidiary will be deemed to have possession, custody or control of

9

documents held by its parent company only in certain circumstances”). Plaintiff has

10

offered no evidence that circumstances exist such that this Defendant has “some form of

11

‘control’ … over the documents and information sought.” LG Display Co. v. Chi Mei

12

Optroelectronics Corp., 2009 WL 223585, at *3. There is no indication that Defendant

13

has either control or access to the contact information, records, or other information for

14

the non-exempt employees of any other subsidiary of Sysco Corporation. Additionally,

15

Sysco Corporation is a named defendant from which Plaintiff can pursue this information

16

directly. Accordingly, the court finds that the scope of discovery is properly limited to

17

Defendant’s entity, i.e., Sysco San Diego, Inc.

18

Further restrictions to the scope of discovery are appropriate for certain requests.

19

Though cited by neither party, the Eastern District of California recently addressed an

20

analogous case. In Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California the court was presented

21

with a discovery dispute in a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor

22

Standards Act for a class that was allegedly subject to a company-wide policy. No. 1:15-

23

CV-00842 AWI SAB, 2017 WL 495635, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017). The Eastern

24

District noted the limitations and distinctions between class and merits discovery:

25
26
27
4

28

The definitions were not provided or attached to the Joint Motion for the Court’s
review.
7
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

At this stage of the litigation, the parties are conducting
discovery only as to class certification. While the Court
recognizes that there is some overlap between class certification
and merits discovery, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S.
338, 351 (2011), it also considers the proportionality of the
requested discovery considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). [¶]
Here, Plaintiff is seeking punch, time and pay records for all
putative class members. While Plaintiff is entitled to conduct
some discovery in preparation of the motion for class
certification, discovery of all putative class member pay, punch,
and time information goes to the merits and is beyond the
discovery needed in preparing the class certification motion.

13

Id. at *4. To strike the balance between class and merits discovery, the Talavera court

14

permitted production for a limited group of class members and sampling of the remainder

15

of the class. Id.

16

Here, the Court finds that several of the document production requests in particular

17

seek merits discovery that is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this stage of

18

litigation. As addressed individually below, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further

19

documents in response to these requests will be limited in some instances to the

20

information already provided by Defendant. If a class is certified and this case proceeds

21

to merits discovery on the alleged state-wide class, Plaintiff may then re-issue discovery

22

to obtain documents on a state-wide basis.

23

B. Interrogatories

24

Plaintiff seeks to compel further answers to Interrogatories 1 through 4.

25

Interrogatory 1 asks for contact information of the putative class members.

26

Interrogatories 2 through 4 ask for the number of all putative class members currently

27

employed; the number terminated in the relevant period; and employed by Defendant

28

specifically. Generally, Defendant offered objections and answers for the Palm Springs
8
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

facility only. Plaintiff seeks to compel answers inclusive of the entire state-wide putative

2

class. The court will first address the objections raised, and then the specific requests.

3
4

1. Objections to Definitions
Defendant objects to the Plaintiff’s definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS

5

MEMBERS” as overbroad and disproportional to the needs of the case on the grounds

6

that Plaintiff cannot adequately represent the class members. Neither party put this

7

definition before the court for review. The Joint Motion provides responses only that

8

contain the question and response, but do not include the definitions contained with the

9

original requests. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 1. Nonetheless, the adequacy of the class

10

representative is best addressed at the motion for class certification, and not at the

11

discovery phase where a prima facie showing is all that is required. See, Coleman v.

12

Jenny Craig, Inc., 2013 WL 2896884, at *6. In regards to over-breadth, the court has

13

addressed the scope of discovery above.

14

Defendant also objects to the definition of “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS” as

15

vague and ambiguous because “Plaintiff defines the term to include ‘other similar job

16

designations or titles.’” ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 1 [Page ID 508, lines 5-6]. This objection

17

lacks merit. While Defendant is correct that the phrase lacks specificity, Defendant is

18

uniquely positioned to know the exact job titles and designations for its employees.

19

Defendant objects to providing information for any entity other than the named

20

Defendant to which discovery was propounded. This objection is proper. See, Section

21

II.A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (b)(1); LG Display Co. v. Chi Mei Optroelectronics Corp., 2009

22

WL 223585, at *3.

23

2. Privacy

24

For Interrogatory No. 1, Defendant also objects to the production of contact

25

information on the grounds of privacy. Contact information including mailing address,

26

telephone number, and email addresses are commonly found to be relevant and

27

discoverable, and related privacy concerns of the class members has been raised an

28

addressed by many courts. See, Salgado v. O'Lakes, No. 1:13-CV-0798-LJO-SMS, 2014
9
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

WL 7272784, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014) (collecting cases permitting contact

2

information to be produced and protective orders to address privacy concerns); Brawner

3

v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C 14-02702 YGR (LB), 2014 WL 6845504, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

4

Dec. 4, 2014) (same).

5

This Court agrees with the many courts that have addressed this issue that privacy

6

concerns of the class are properly managed under a protective order and that

7

communications must be fair and accurate, and must not be misleading, intimidating, or

8

coercive. Salgado v. O'Lakes, 2014 WL 7272784, at *12. Where privacy concerns have

9

been raised, courts have also required “Plaintiff's counsel to “inform each potential

10

putative class member contacted by Plaintiff that he or she has a right not to talk to

11

counsel and that, if he or she elects not to talk to counsel, Plaintiff's counsel will

12

terminate the contact and not contact them again.” Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No.

13

13-CV-0119-LHK, 2013 WL 3215186, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013); see also,

14

Brawner v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 WL 6845504, at *3 (same). In addition, courts have

15

required Plaintiff’s counsel to make clear that Defendant was compelled by court order to

16

provide the contact information, and communicate the highly confidential nature of the

17

disclosure. Id.

18

This Court will likewise order that all communications are bound by these

19

strictures, and that the contact information may be used only for the purposes of this

20

lawsuit, and that the class list should not be distributed to any other person or entity.

21

3. Interrogatory No. 1

22

Interrogatory No. 1 asks:

23

What are the names, job titles, last known ADDRESSES,
telephone numbers, and email addresses of the PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD? 5

24
25
26
27
28

5

Defendant raises no objection to the time period.
10
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response is GRANTED IN

2

PART.

3

Consistent with the foregoing analysis, Defendant is ORDERED to provide an

4

amended answer with the names, job titles, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and

5

email address (“Contact Information”) for any putative class member employed by

6

Defendant Sysco San Diego, Inc. at any of its facilities during the relevant time period by

7

August 7, 2017. This Contact Information is to be provided subject to the protective

8

order operative in this case.

9

Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to

10

(1) Only use the Contact Information for the purposes of this lawsuit and the

11

Contact Information may not be distributed to any other person or entity;

12

(2) Plaintiff’s counsel must inform each potential putative class member contacted

13

that he or she has a right not to talk to counsel and that, if he or she elects not to

14

talk to counsel, Plaintiff's counsel will terminate the contact and not contact

15

them again;

16

(3) Plaintiff’s counsel must also make clear that Defendant was compelled by court

17

order to provide the Contact Information, and communicate the highly

18

confidential nature of the disclosure;

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(4) All communications must be fair and accurate and must not be misleading,
intimidating, or coercive.
4. Interrogatory Nos. 2 - 4
Interrogatory Nos. 2 – 4 state:
(2) How many PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS are currently
employed by SYSCO SAN DIEGO, INC.?
(3) How many PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS have had their
employment with YOU terminated – either voluntarily or
involuntarily – from April 11, 2012 to the present?

28
11
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

(4) How many PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS has SYSCO
SAN DIEGO, INC., employed during the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD?

2
3
4

ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED IN

5

PART.

6

Consistent with the foregoing analysis regarding scope, Defendant is ORDERED

7

to provide amended answers that include all facilities and employees of Defendant Sysco

8

San Diego, Inc. by August 7, 2017.

9
10

C. Requests for Production of Documents
Plaintiff also seeks to compel further production of documents from Defendant.

11

The parties met and conferred on this issue and Defendant has produced some documents

12

and agreed to produce others. ECF No. 24 at 2-3. However, the parties continue to

13

disagree regarding both the proper scope and sufficiency of production for several

14

requests. Defendant objects that many of the requests are overbroad, and seek vast

15

quantities of documents that are neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case.

16
17

1. Defendant’s Objections
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections are boilerplate and lack merit. The

18

Court disagrees. While some objections were unnecessary (e.g., attorney client or work

19

product privilege, see ECF No. 24 at 19), Defendant’s objections, particularly regarding

20

over-breadth and emails, are well founded. See, ECF No. 24 at 6, 13-16.

21

In addition, Defendant states that it offered to meet and confer with Plaintiff to

22

develop search terms and connectors to narrow the search for responsive documents and

23

agreed to produce documents in response to reasonable search parameters. ECF No. 24,

24

at 13, 14-15. It appears that Plaintiff has not responded to this request. ECF No. 24 at

25

13:1-2. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument that a “simple use of the ‘search’ function in their

26

respective email program” demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding of e-discovery

27

that this Court rejects. ECF No. 24 at 13:27-28. By and large, Plaintiff’s requests are not

28

tailored or proportional to the needs of the case and Defendant’s objections are proper.
12
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

While each request is addressed individually, Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to

1
2

meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel to develop reasonable, tailored search terms

3

and appropriate connectors to limit the scope and breadth of the requests that seek emails.

4

If necessary, each parties’ persons knowledgeable regarding the technical aspects of e-

5

discovery (e.g. e-discovery vendors, paralegals, IT personnel, or other ESI

6

representatives) may participate in the meet and confer conference to aide in the

7

development of search terms and appropriate connectors to narrow and tailor the

8

parameters of discovery and scope of responsive documents. For each request that

9

directs the parties meet and confer, the parties are ORDERED to have and complete that

10

conference by July 21, 2017. Following the conference, Defendant shall have 30 days,

11

until August 31, 2017, to produce the responsive emails.

12

2. Request for Production of Documents, Set One (Nos. 2, 3, 5-7, 10-12,

13

14, 15, 24, 25, 28-33, 37-40, and 42)

14

Request No 2:

15

All EMAILS and/or communications referring to YOUR meal
period and/or rest period policies, practices, and/or procedures
for the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for the RELEVANT
TIME PERIOD.

16
17
18

Defendant’s response to this request includes objections only, including that the

19

request is disproportionate to the needs of the case based on the inclusion of “emails” and

20

is overbroad. ECF No. 24-1, Ex 2 [Page ID 517-518]. The Joint Motion indicates that

21

Defendant agreed to a supplement these responses and requested reasonable search

22

parameters to respond to this request due to the inclusion of “emails.” ECF No. 24 at 2,

23

13.

24

Defendant has agreed to supplement its production. Plaintiff’s counsel is

25

ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/

26

vendors if necessary) to develop reasonable search terms and connectors to identify

27

relevant, narrowly tailored, responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant

28

must produce responsive documents by August 31, 2017.
13
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

Request No 3:

2

All DOCUMENTS concerning and/or referring to YOUR
policies and practices of how meal periods were counted,
tabulated and/or deducted for the PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

3
4
5

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce its policies

6

related to meal period for its drivers. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 518-519].

7

Defendant’s statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been

8

produced. ECF No. 24 at 2.

9

Plaintiff’s Joint Motion submissions address the objections raised, but fails to

10

specify what further documents or production Plaintiff desires or believes exist in

11

response to this particular request. Accordingly, the Court finds the Defendant’s

12

objections and scope of production proper and proportionate to the needs of the case at

13

this time. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further production is DENIED.

14

Request No 5:

15

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning and/or referring to how YOUR wages were
recorded for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

16
17
18

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce its payroll

19

policies. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 520-521]. Defendant’s statement in the Joint

20

Motion indicates responsive documents, other than emails, were produced. ECF No. 24

21

at 2. Plaintiff appears to only seek emails not produced in response to this request.

22

The Court finds that as phrased, this request is vague and overbroad. The request

23

seeks inter-company communications regarding wage recording. The Court agrees with

24

Defendant that other means of discovery (e.g., deposition of a company representative)

25

are better suited to seek the type of information sought by this request, rendering it

26

burdensome. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further production is DENIED.

27

///

28

///
14
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

Request No 6:

2

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning and/or referring to wage records, pay stubs,
paychecks and/or W-2s concerning Plaintiff RICK FRIERI.

3
4
5

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

6

documents, apart from emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 521-522]. Defendant’s

7

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

8

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

9

The Court finds this request proper. However, reasonable search terms and

10

connectors are appropriate and proportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiff’s motion

11

to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to meet and

12

confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/vendors if necessary) to

13

develop reasonable search terms and connectors to identify relevant, narrowly tailored,

14

responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant must produce responsive

15

emails by August 31, 2017.

16

Request No 7:

17

All wage records, pay-stubs, and or paychecks concerning the
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD.

18
19
20

Defendant’s response includes objections only, primarily that Defendant did not

21

employ the class members. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 522]. Defendant’s statement

22

in the Joint Motion indicates that it has agreed to provide supplemental responses. ECF

23

No. 24 at 3.

24

The Court finds this request, as phrased, seeks merits discovery disproportionate to

25

the needs of the case at the class certification stage. Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of

26

California, 2017 WL 495635, at *4. Defendant has agreed to supplement its response,

27

and is bound by that agreement. Plaintiff did not address this request specifically in its

28

Joint Motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s agreement to supplement its
15
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

responses strikes proper balance of class and merits discovery, and Defendant remains

2

bound by that agreement. Plaintiff’s motion to compel any further production is

3

DENIED.

4
5
6
7

Request No 10:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR policies and practices concerning what the
PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS can and/or cannot do during
their workday for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

8

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

9

documents, other than emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 523-524]. Defendant’s

10

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

11

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

12

Emails reflecting complaints or putative class members’ violations of any such

13

policies would fall within the scope of this request are relevant to the action. Plaintiff’s

14

motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to meet

15

and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/vendors if necessary) to

16

develop reasonable search terms and connectors to identify relevant, narrowly tailored,

17

responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant must produce responsive

18

emails by August 31, 2017.

19

Request No 11:

20
21
22

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR use of any time, attendance, and/or payroll
systems, programs, and/or companies during the RELEVANT
TIME PERIOD.

23

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

24

documents, other than emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 524-525]. Defendant’s

25
26
27

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and
that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel appears only to seek any withheld emails.

28
16
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

The Court finds that as phrased, this request is vague and overbroad. The request

2

seeks inter-company communications regarding the use of payroll systems. The Court

3

agrees with Defendant that other means of discovery (e.g., deposition of a payroll

4

representative) are better suited to seek the type of information sought by this request,

5

rendering it burdensome. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production is DENIED.

6
7
8
9
10

Request No 12:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning and/or referring to the job duties and/or
responsibilities of the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

11

documents, apart from emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 525-526]. Defendant’s

12

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

13

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

14

The Court finds this request proper. However, reasonable search terms and

15

connectors are appropriate and proportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiff’s motion

16

to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to meet and

17

confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/vendors if necessary) to

18

develop reasonable search terms and connectors by no later than July 21, 2017.

19

Defendant must produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017.

20
21
22
23
24

Request No 14:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning daily activity sheets; daily activity documents
and/or daily documents concerning Plaintiff RICK FRIERI.
This includes, but is not limited to daily route sheets,
checkpoint, and/or daily goal documents.

25

Defendant’s response states that following a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,

26

it has no documents in its possession, custody or control in response to this request. ECF

27

No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 526-527]. Defendant’s statement in the Joint Motion reasserts

28

this response. ECF No. 24 at 2.
17
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

The Court finds this request proper. The Court also finds that for all non-email

2

documents, Defendant’s response is proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). However,

3

Defendant’s response states that it did not search emails, and Request No. 14 is not

4

included among the requests for which Defendant states it is seeking reasonable search

5

parameters. ECF No. 24 at 2, ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 527]. Accordingly,

6

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. If the type of documents sought

7

by this request are not generated by Defendant and would not exist in email format, then

8

Defendant may provide an amended, verified response to clarify same by no later than

9

August 7, 2017. If this type of document exists within Defendant’s emails, then

10

Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI

11

representatives/vendors if necessary) to develop reasonable search terms and connectors

12

to identify relevant, narrowly tailored, responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017.

13

Defendant must produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017.

14

Request No 15:

15

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR employment manuals for all the PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

16
17
18

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

19

documents, apart from emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 527-528]. Defendant’s

20

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

21

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

22

The Court finds that as phrased this request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant

23

information. Any and all communications or documents referring to the employment

24

manual are not relevant to this action. The scope of the request must be limited to

25

information regarding duties of drivers, meal and rest breaks, and wage/payroll policies

26

as reflected, revised, or modified in the employment manuals during the relevant time

27

period.

28
18
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

The Court ORDERS that all employment manuals in use during the relevant time

2

period for the putative class members be produced, if they were not included in

3

Defendant’s production to date. If Plaintiff identifies substantive changes to the sections

4

regarding job duties, meal and/or rest breaks, or wage/payroll policies, or other policy

5

directly relevant to this litigation, then Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to meet and

6

confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/vendors if necessary) to

7

develop reasonable search terms and connectors to identify emails related to the relevant

8

changes to the applicable policies by no later than July 21, 2017, and Defendant must

9

produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017. If there were no changes to the

10

applicable and relevant employment manual policies, then no further action or production

11

is required from Defendant in response to this request.

12
13
14
15
16

Request Nos. 24-25:
All DOCUMENTS concerning the PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS’ actual clock-in/clock-out times during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD…in native format … [No. 24]
[and] in pdf format [No. 25].
Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

17

documents. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 533-535]. Defendant’s statement in the Joint

18

Motion indicates Defendant is awaiting documents for the remainder of the “putative

19

class” as interpreted by Defendant, i.e. drivers at the Palm Springs facility where Plaintiff

20

worked and will produce upon receipt. ECF No. 24 at 3.

21

The Court finds that this request seeks relevant information. However, as phrased

22

and with the definition of “putative class” as defined by Plaintiff, this request seeks

23

merits discovery disproportionate to the needs of the case at the class certification stage.

24

Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California, 2017 WL 495635, at *4.

25

Defendant represents to the Court that Defendant presently has 4 facilities, at least

26

two of which were in operation at the time Plaintiff was employed. ECF No. 24 at 9.

27

Defendant represents two facilities have closed including the facility where Plaintiff

28

worked. To balance the interests of both parties while permitting Plaintiff the
19
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

opportunity to present evidence as to a viable class, the Court finds the proper scope of

2

discovery for the purposes of production of documents in response to this request to be

3

Sysco San Diego, Inc.’s facilities in existence and operation during the time Plaintiff was

4

employed. The facilities that have opened since Plaintiff’s separation from Defendant

5

are, for the moment, excluded.

6

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.

7

Defendant is ORDERED to produce responsive information for the non-exempt drivers

8

operating out of the facilities in operation and existence during Plaintiff’s time of

9

employment during the relevant time period by August 7, 2017.

10

Request No 28:

11

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR training manuals and/or training materials
for all the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

12
13
14

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

15

documents, documents, apart from emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 537-538].

16

Defendant’s statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been

17

produced, and that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF

18

No. 24 at 2.

19

The Court finds that as phrased, this request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant

20

information. Any and all communications or documents referring to the training manuals

21

or materials are not relevant to this action. The scope of the request must be limited to

22

information regarding job duties of class members, meal and rest breaks, and

23

wage/payroll policies as reflected, revised, or modified in the training manuals or

24

materials during the relevant time period.

25

The Court ORDERS that all training manuals in use during the relevant time

26

period for the putative class members be produced, if they were not included in

27

Defendant’s production to date. If Plaintiff identifies substantive changes to the sections

28

regarding job duties, meal and/or rest breaks, or wage/payroll policies, or other policy
20
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

directly relevant to this litigation, then Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to meet and

2

confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/vendors if necessary) to

3

develop reasonable search terms and connectors to identify and produce emails related to

4

the relevant changes to the applicable policies by no later than July 21, 2017, and

5

Defendant must produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017. If there were no changes

6

to the applicable and relevant employment manual policies, then no further action or

7

production is required from Defendant in response to this request.

8
9

Request No 29:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR manager files and/or documents concerning
Plaintiff RICK FRIERI.

10
11
12

Defendant’s response includes objections to the email search and states it will

13

produce Mr. Frieri’s personnel file. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 538]. Defendant’s

14

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

15

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

16

Plaintiff appears only to seek to compel responsive emails.

17

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel is

18

ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI

19

representatives/vendors if necessary) to develop reasonable search terms and connectors

20

by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant must produce responsive emails by August

21

31, 2017.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Request No 30:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR timekeeping software systems for the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive
documents, other than emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 538-539]. Defendant’s

28
21
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

2

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

3

The Court finds that as phrased this request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant

4

information. Any and all communications or documents referring to the timekeeping

5

software are not relevant to this action. The scope of the request must be limited to

6

information regarding meal and rest breaks, and items such as automatic deductions, or

7

other allegations within Plaintiff’s complaint.

8

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel is

9

ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel to (1) narrow the scope of the

10

request to seek only relevant information and then, (2) develop reasonable search terms

11

and connectors to identify and produce emails responsive to the narrowly tailored request

12

by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant must produce responsive emails by August

13

31, 2017.

14
15

Request No 31:

17

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning how meal periods are inputted and/or integrated into
the timekeeping software systems for the PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

18

Defendant’s response includes objections and states it will produce responsive

16

19

documents, apart from emails. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 539-540]. Defendant’s

20

statement in the Joint Motion indicates responsive documents have been produced, and

21

that search parameters were requested regarding email production. ECF No. 24 at 2.

22

The Court finds this request proper and appropriately tailored. However,

23

reasonable search terms and connectors are appropriate and proportionate to the needs of

24

the case. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s counsel is

25

ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI representatives/

26

vendors if necessary) to develop reasonable search terms and connectors to identify

27

relevant, narrowly tailored, responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant

28

must produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017.
22
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1
2
3
4
5
6

Request No 32:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning YOUR records which record time worked, meal
periods taken, rest periods taken, deductions, and/or tax
deductions regarding Plaintiff RICK FRIERI for the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
Defendant’s response is objections only on the grounds that the request is vague,

7

ambiguous, overbroad and disproportionate. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 540-541].

8

Defendant’s statement in the Joint Motion does not address this request to indicate

9

whether any documents were produced. ECF No. 24 at 2-3. Plaintiff does not address

10
11

this request specifically.
The Court finds this request is duplicative of other requests (see Request Nos. 6,

12

33) but as it is not clear that any documents have been produced, will permit Plaintiff to

13

proceed. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to

14

produce any (non-email) documents that record or are otherwise used to calculate or

15

record time worked that have not been otherwise produced, e.g. time sheets, punch logs,

16

etc., as well as documents reflecting deductions by August 7, 2017. Plaintiff’s counsel is

17

ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI

18

representatives/vendors if necessary) to develop reasonable search terms and connectors

19

to identify and produce responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant

20

must produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Request No 33:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS and/or communications
concerning and/or referring to YOUR records which record
time worked, meal periods taken, and rest periods taken
regarding the PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS for the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
Defendant’s response is objections only on the grounds that the request is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, disproportionate and seeks irrelevant information. ECF No. 24-1,

28
23
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

Ex. 2 [Page ID 541-542]. Defendant’s statement in the Joint Motion argues the request

2

seeks potentially limitless discovery. ECF No. 24 at 13.

3

The Court finds that as phrased, this request is overbroad and seeks merits

4

discovery disproportionate to the needs of the case at the class certification stage.

5

Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California, 2017 WL 495635, at *4. Additionally, this

6

request appears to be duplicative of Requests 24-25. However, some discovery is

7

warranted.

8
9

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.
To balance the interests of both parties while permitting Plaintiff the opportunity to

10

present evidence as to a viable class, the Court finds the proper scope of discovery for the

11

purposes of production of documents in response to this request to be identical to

12

Requests 24-25, Sysco San Diego, Inc.’s facilities in existence and operation during the

13

time Plaintiff was employed. Defendant is ORDERED to produce any documents that

14

record or are otherwise used to calculate or record time worked that have not been

15

otherwise produced, e.g. time sheets, punch logs, etc. by August 7, 2017. Plaintiff’s

16

counsel is ORDERED to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel (with ESI

17

representatives/vendors if necessary) to develop reasonable search terms and connectors

18

to identify and produce responsive emails by no later than July 21, 2017. Defendant

19

must produce responsive emails by August 31, 2017.

20
21
22

Request Nos. 37-39:
Request No 37: All of YOUR organizational charts for YOUR
California operations and/or the PUTATIVE CLASS
MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

23
24
25
26

Request No. 38: All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS, and/or
communications concerning YOUR organizational charts for
YOUR California operations for the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD.

27
28
24
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1
2

Request No. 39: All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS, and/or
communications concerning YOUR corporate structure and/or
corporate hierarchy.

3
4

Defendant’s responses includes objections and states it will produce organizational

5

charts. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID 545-547]. Plaintiff states that Defendant is

6

attempting to limit production to the San Diego location for request 37. ECF No. 24 at

7

11-12. Plaintiff’s only basis to move to compel further responses to requests 38 and 39

8

appear to be that email documents were withheld. Defendant’s Joint Motion section

9

indicates it is waiting for responsive documents and agreed to produce same. ECF No.

10
11

24 at 2, 12 [fn.2].
This request was directed to Defendant, Sysco San Diego, Inc. To the extent Sysco

12

San Diego, Inc. has organizational charts that reflect state-wide operations, they must be

13

produced. However, this request was not directed to Sysco Corporation, nor does it seek

14

documents showing the interaction of the two defendants. See, e.g., Request No. 43

15

(discussed below).

16

If Sysco San Diego, Inc. operates solely in San Diego and thus, its organizational

17

charts reflect only San Diego operations, Plaintiff will need to pursue discovery from the

18

proper entity to obtain additional organizational information. The Court does not find

19

that “emails or communications” relating to corporate structure are relevant or

20

proportionate to the needs of the case when documents and/or charts should provide all

21

the relevant and necessary information. While Defendant remains bound by its

22

agreement to produce the responsive documents it is “awaiting,” Plaintiff’s motion to

23

compel further production to these requests is otherwise DENIED.

24
25
26
27

Request No 40:
All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS, and/or communications
concerning the last known ADDRESSES, telephone numbers,
and/or email addresses concerning all of the PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBERS for the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

28
25
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

Defendant’s response contains objections only on the grounds that the request is

2

overbroad, disproportionate and invades the privacy of its employees. ECF No. 24-1,

3

Ex. 2 [Page ID 548-549].

4

The Court agrees with Defendant that this request is disproportionate to the needs

5

of the case, overbroad, and invades the privacy of the employees. The Court ordered

6

contact information be produced in response to interrogatories, rendering this request

7

duplicative. Additional documentation is not necessary or proportionate to the needs of

8

the case or the purposes of class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further

9

production is DENIED.

10

Request No 42:

11

All DOCUMENTS, EMAILS, and/or communications
concerning and/or supporting YOUR contention, if being made,
that YOU compensated any PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER
under California Labor Code section 226.7(c) during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

12
13
14
15

Defendant’s response contains objections only on the grounds that the request is

16

overbroad, disproportionate, and vague and ambiguous. ECF No. 24-1, Ex. 2 [Page ID

17

549-550]. The Joint Motion represents that Defendant agreed to provide supplemental

18

responses.

19

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request proper, however, in light of Defendant’s

20

agreement to supplement its response, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion

21

to compel any further production.

22
23

3. Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (Nos. 43 – 48 [Joint
Employer Relationship])

24

Plaintiff’s Request 43-48 purportedly seek information regarding a joint employer

25

relationship. ECF No. 24 at 3-4. Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff’s attempt to gather

26

information relevant to the factors that support a joint-employer relationship as set forth

27

in Castenada v. The Ensign Group, Inc., 229 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1019 (Cal. App. 2d Dist.

28
26
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

2014).6 To obtain this information, Plaintiff seeks documents related to the structure of

2

Defendant and Sysco Corporation, as well as various broad categories of documents (e.g.

3

“operations” and “human resources”) from Ms. Theresa Livesay, the “Market HR

4

Business Partner for the Pacific Market” for Sysco Corporation, who was formerly

5

employed by Defendant as Vice President of Human Resources. ECF No. 24 at 5-6.

6

Request No. 43

7

Please produce all DOCUMENTS and charts depicting the
organizational structure between YOU and Sysco Corporation
during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Defendant’s response states it will produce responsive documents. ECF No. 24-1,
Ex. 3 [Page ID 557]. Id. In the Joint Motion, Defendant represents that it is awaiting
some documents and will produce upon receipt. ECF No. 24 at 3:1-3.
The Court finds this request proper. The Court acknowledges Defendant’s
response and efforts, but will impose a timeline for completion. It is hereby ORDERED
that Defendant produce documents responsive to Request No. 43 no later than August 7,
2017.
Request Nos. 44-48

17

Request Nos. 44-48 are as follows:

18

Request No. 44: Please produce all emails between Ms.
Theresa Livesay and any person employed by you during the
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

19
20
21

Request No. 45: Please produce all emails between Ms.
Theresa Livesay and YOUR employees regarding YOUR
operations sent during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

Factors include hiring and paying employees, supervising work, and exercising control
over how services are performed. Castenada v. The Ensign Group, Inc., 229 Cal.App.4th
1015, 1019-1020 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2014).
27
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS

1

Request No. 46: Please produce all emails between Ms.
Theresa Livesay and YOUR employees regarding human
resources issues sent during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

2
3

Request No. 47: Please produce all emails between Ms.
Theresa Livesay and YOUR employees which reference and/or
refer to employees employed at Sysco San Diego, Inc. during
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

4
5
6
7

Request No. 48: Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS,
reports, and/or memoranda Ms. Theresa Livesay sent and or
provided to any of YOUR employees during the RELEVANT
TIME PERIOD

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

In the Joint Motion, Defendant objects to Requests 44-48 as overbroad and
disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Court agrees. As phrased, these requests
seek every email and document exchanged between Ms. Livesay and any employee of
Defendant without limitation as to topic or relevance. See, Request Nos. 44-48; ECF no.
24-1, Ex. 3 [Page ID 557-558]. Plaintiff made no discernable attempt to tailor these the
requests to identify documents responsive to the factors as outlined in Castenada v. The
Ensign Group, Inc.
This Court will not compel such broad production. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
further responses or documents in response to Request for Production Nos. 44-48 is
DENIED.
III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
the Plaintiff’s motion to compel consistent with the terms as set forth in this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 7, 2017

25
26
27
28
28
3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS