Murphy et al v. Prestige Care, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER regarding discovery issues. Signed on 6/15/17 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

Case 3:17-cv-00467-PK

Document 24

Filed 06/15/17

Page 1 of 4

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JON MURPHY, et al.,
No. 3: 17-cv-0467-PK
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
PRESTIGE SENIOR LIVING, LLC,
Defendant.

PAPAK, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs Jon Murphy, Elsbeth Murphy, Che1yl Monis, and Holly Peterson bring this
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of former and current non-exempt hourly staff employed by Defendant Prestige
Senior Living, LLC since 2014. Plaintiffs allege that while working at Defendant's Riverwood
Care Facility (Riverwood), an assisted living center in Tualatin, Defendants encouraged,
required, or permitted hourly workers to work "off the clock," and did not pay hourly workers

Page -1- ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-00467-PK

Document 24

Filed 06/15/17

Page 2 of 4

who worked late or during lunch. Plaintiffs allege that the proposed collective action or class
comprises more than 100 cu1Tent and fmmer employees of Defendant.
The pmiies now dispute two of Plaintiffs' discovery requests. I grant the requests as
follows.

BACKGROUND
I quote Plaintiffs' disputed discove1y requests and Defendant's responses:
REQUEST NO. 1: Electronic data reflecting the name and last known addresses of all
current hourly wage employees of Defendant, who have worked at any time at Defendant's
Riverwood care facility, in the State of Oregon ("Cunent Employees"). In the alternative, if
there is no electronic data base, Plaintiff would request responsive written documents.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is overly broad,
burdensome, and seeks documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of
admissible evidence. Fu1iher, defendants object to this request on the grounds it seeks highly
confidential and privileged information regarding individuals not parties to this action and would
unduly invade the privacy interests of these individuals. Nevertheless, and without waiving said
objection, defendants will produce responsive documents regarding the four named plaintiffs in
this action.
REQUEST NO. 2: Electronic data reflecting the name and last known addresses of all
fmmer hourly wage employees of Defendant, who have worked at any time at Defendant's
Riverwood care facility, in the State of Oregon ("Fo1mer Employees"). In the alternative, if there
is no electronic data base, Plaintiff would request responsive written documents.
RESPONSE: Defendants object to this request on the grounds it is overly broad,
burdensome, and seeks documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of
admissible evidence. Further, defendants object to this request on the grounds it seeks highly
confidential and privileged information regarding individuals not parties to this action and would
unduly invade the privacy interests of these individuals. Nevertheless, and without waiving said
objection, defendants will produce responsive documents regarding the four named plaintiffs in
this action.
DISCUSSION
"The FLSA grants employees a private right of action to enforce the minimum wage and
oveliime provision of the FLSA. An action may be brought by employees, not only on their own

Page -2-

ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-00467-PK

Document 24

Filed 06/15/17

Page 3 of 4

behalf: but also on behalf of 'other employees similarly situated."' Hensley v. Eppendo1fN. Am.,

Inc., No. 14-cv-419-BEN (NLS), 2014 WL 2566144, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2014) (citing 29
U.S.C. § 216(b)). Therefore, to obtain certification of a collective action under the FLSA,
Plaintiffs must show they are "similarly situated" to the potential plaintiffs. "As a result,
identifying the potential Plaintiffs is ce1iainly essential, and therefore relevant, to this inquiry, as
it is in connection with class ce1iification under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23." Sargant

v. HG Staffing, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-00453-LRH, 2014 WL 1653273, at *3-4 (D. Nev. April 23,
2014). This court has "broad discretion to control the class ce1iification process," and
"' [w]hether or not discovery will be pe1mitted ... lies within the sound discretion of the trial
colni."' Vinole v. Counflywide Home Loans, Inc., 571F.3d935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting

Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir. 1975)).
Here, Defendant objects that Plaintiffs' requests are overly broad, and do not include a
time limitation. In light of the FLSA' s requirements for bringing a collective action, I find that
Plaintiffs' requests are reasonable when limited to contact info1mation for cuTI"ent and former
hourly employees at Riverwood since 2014. See Am.

Comp!.~

11, ECF No. 17. To avoid

potential privacy issues, Plaintiffs state that they would "agree to a protective order limiting the
use of the information to this lawsuit, and Plaintiffs would agree to confidentially destroy the
information after conclusion of the case."
Within fomieen days from the date of this Order, the pmiies are to confer and agree on an
appropriate protective order to preserve the privacy of Defendant's cuTI"ent and former
employees. Within twenty-one days from the date of this Order, Defendant are to provide
Plaintiffs' counsel, in a standard electronic format or, if necessary, in writing, a list of the nmnes,

Page -3-

ORDER

Case 3:17-cv-00467-PK

Document 24

Filed 06/15/17

Page 4 of 4

addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment for all current or fonner
hourly wage employees who worked at Riverwood since 2014.

Dated this 15th day of

United States Magistrate Judge

Page -4-

ORDER