Garcia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 107

ORDER on 106 Joint Motion Re Discovery Dispute. To the extent that the Joint Motion Re Discovery Dispute presents Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, it is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/11/2022. (bxr)

Case 3:18-cv-00500-L-MDD Document 107 Filed 01/11/22 PageID.1677 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

JULIO GARCIA, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.,
et al.,

15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION RE
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[ECF NO. 106]

Defendants.

16
18

Case No.: 18-cv-0500-L-MDD

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of
a discovery dispute filed on January 6, 2022. (ECF No. 106). The dispute
pertains to a single document that Plaintiff asserts should have been
disclosed pursuant to certain Requests for Production served during the
period of fact discovery. Although fact discovery closed long ago, which
normally would render this dispute untimely, the district judge, in an Order
dated November 19, 2021, authorized Plaintiff to seek production of this
document and for Defendant to oppose production. (ECF No. 100 at 2).
//
//
1

18-cv-0500-L-MDD

Case 3:18-cv-00500-L-MDD Document 107 Filed 01/11/22 PageID.1678 Page 2 of 4

LEGAL STANDARD

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain

2
3

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

4

defense and proportional to the needs of the case ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

5

“Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence

6

to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to limit

7

discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

8

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

9

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
A party may request the production of any document within the scope of

10
11

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response

12

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

13

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

14

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive

15

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be

16

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another

17

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state

18

whether any responsive materials are being withheld based on that objection.

19

Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the part and

20

permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding party is

21

responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, custody, or

22

control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not required.

23

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

24

a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or

25

has control over the entity who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City

26

of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

27

//
2

18-cv-0500-L-MDD

Case 3:18-cv-00500-L-MDD Document 107 Filed 01/11/22 PageID.1679 Page 3 of 4

DISCUSSION

1
2

The document at issue reflects certain policies of Defendant regarding

3

payment of wages including PTO and sick pay. Plaintiff asserts that the

4

document should have been disclosed in response to its Requests for

5

Production (“RFP”) numbers 3 and 4. RFP No. 3 required Defendant to

6

produce all employee handbooks or manuals that applied to California

7

employees during the relevant period. (ECF No. 106 at 3). RFP No. 4 required

8

Defendant to produce all documents pertaining to policies, procedures and

9

practices regarding compliance with [California] Labor Code Sections 201-203

10

applying to California employees during the relevant time period. (Id.).

11

Defendant’s short answer is that the document at issue does not apply

12

to California employees. (ECF No. 106 at 11-15). Defendant explains that it

13

has differing policies affecting employees in different states due to the

14

vagaries of various state laws. In California, departing employees must be

15

paid their final wages immediately; in certain other states, employees may be

16

paid final wages on their next payday. Defendant asserts that the document

17

at issue applies to states allowing for next payday payments; it does not and

18

has not applied to California employees. See Declaration of Diana

19

McChristian, ¶¶ 4-14 (ECF No. 106-3). Consequently, Defendant argues, this

20

document is not subject to production pursuant to RFPs 3 and 4 as it does not

21

apply to California employees.

22

Plaintiff has viewed the disputed document and argues that there is

23

nothing in the document itself that states it is not applicable to California

24

employees. That argument is unavailing in the face of evidence, in the form of

25

Ms. McChristian’s Declaration, that the policy expressed in the disputed

26

document does not apply to California employees. Plaintiff has offered no

27

evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant violates its
3

18-cv-0500-L-MDD

Case 3:18-cv-00500-L-MDD Document 107 Filed 01/11/22 PageID.1680 Page 4 of 4

1

California policies does not make this document relevant. Consequently, as

2

the document does not apply to Defendant’s California employees, it is not

3

subject to production under RFP 3 or 4.

4

CONCLUSION

5

To the extent that the Joint Motion Re Discovery Dispute presents

6

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, it is DENIED.

7

Dated: January 11, 2022

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4

18-cv-0500-L-MDD