1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO GARCIA, Case No.: 18cv0500-L-MDD
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION RE 13 DISCOVERY DISPUTE
14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., [ECF No. 146] 15 Defendants. 16
17 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for determination of a 18 discovery dispute filed on March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 146). The dispute at 19 present concerns several of Plaintiff’s requests for production and 20 interrogatories regarding the res judicata defense asserted by Defendants’, 21 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (collectively 22 “Defendants”). (Id.). For the reasons provided herein, Plaintiff’s motion to 23 compel production of documents and further responses set forth in the 24 parties’ Joint Motion Re Discovery Dispute is DENIED. 25 BACKGROUND 26 On November 4, 2021, Defendants sought permission from the Court to 1 amend their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint to add the affirmative defense of 2 res judicata in light of recent PAGA claim settlements in Johnson v. Wal- 3 Mart Stores, Inc., Cruz v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and White and Jackson 4 v. Wal-Mart, Inc. (ECF No. 95 at 4, 5). Defendants argue that the cases cover 5 the same claims as Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. (Id.). The Court initially denied 6 Defendants’ request, but on reconsideration, the Court granted Defendants 7 leave to raise their res judicata defense on summary judgment after Plaintiff 8 was afforded “. . . an adequate opportunity for discovery and investigation.” 9 (ECF No. 136 at 6). 10 District Judge Lorenz directed Magistrate Judge Dembin to “set a 11 schedule for Plaintiff to conduct discovery and/or investigation to respond to 12 Defendants’ res judicata defense.” (ECF No. 136 at 6). Judge Lorenz stated 13 the following in the order: 14 Plaintiff contends that there are “factual disputes as it relates to this proposed res judicata affirmative defense which would require 15 fact discovery to be conducted.” (Oppo. at 15 [ECF No. 105.]) 16 Defendants downplay any need for additional investigation and/or discovery, arguing that “determining whether res judicata applies 17 will involve comparing Plaintiff’s allegations here to the judgments 18 and other publicly available, judicially noticeable pleadings at issue in Johnson and Cruz.” (Mot. Recon. at 15). However, with regard to 19 the allegedly related PAGA cases, Defendants themselves 20 acknowledged, “[i]n some instances, it is not clear that the case is related,” indicating that Plaintiff will need to conduct research and 21 discovery to make those determinations. (See Notice of Related 22 Case at 3 n.3 [ECF No. 113.])
23 Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the Court grants 24 Defendants leave to raise their res judicata defense on summary judgment, but only after Plaintiff is afforded an adequate 25 opportunity for discovery and investigation. 26 (ECF No. 137 at 5, 6). 1 Plaintiff served the Third Set of Request for Production of Documents 2 and Second Set of Interrogatories on Defendants on January 10, 2023. (ECF 3 No. 146-1 at 3). Defendants responded to the discovery on February 9, 2023. 4 (Id.). Plaintiff contends that Defendants refuse to provide “the research and 5 discovery” permitted by Judge Lorenz, and that Defendants’ responses to 6 Plaintiff’s discovery requests are limited to publicly available documents and 7 documents relied on in their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 146 at 8 16). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s discovery requests exceed the scope of 9 Judge Lorenz’s order, or the requests seek irrelevant and/or privileged 10 information. (Id. at 17-19). 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 The scope of discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined 13 as follows: 14 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to 15 the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 16 stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 17 importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 18 burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 19 admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 20 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). 21 Typically, the relevance standard is broad in scope and “encompass[es] 22 any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that 23 could bear on, any issue that is or may be in a case.” Doherty v. Comenity 24 Capital Bank, No. 16cv1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 25 9, 2017). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for 26 discovery purposes. D.M. v. County of Merced, No. 1:20cv00409-JLT-SAB, 1 2022 WL 229865, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 2 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) and Survivor Media v. Survivor Prods., 406 3 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005)). 4 District courts also have broad discretion to limit discovery to prevent 5 its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing courts to limit discovery 6 where the party seeking the discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain 7 the information by discovery in the action” or where the proposed discovery is 8 “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” “obtain[able] from some other 9 source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive,” or where 10 it “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 11 DISCUSSION 12 As will be discussed in further detail below, Plaintiff has not 13 demonstrated that the discovery requests at issue seek relevant, 14 nonprivileged information. Plaintiff continuously cites legal standards 15 without connecting the standards to his discovery requests. Plaintiff only 16 makes blanket statements, such as “. . . all of the discovery sought by 17 Plaintiff goes to Walmart’s res judicata defense and whether it is viable.” (Id. 18 at 20). Plaintiff also states, “In many instances in litigation, the parties will 19 state the substance of their claims in said documents” (referring to discovery 20 propounded in the prior cases, the pleadings, the mediation briefs, and drafts 21 of settlement agreements). (ECF No. 146 at 16). Plaintiff, however, cites no 22 authority that such information is relevant to a res judicata defense. 23 A. Request for Production Nos. 50-53 24 Request for Production Nos. 50-53 seek “all discovery” conducted and/or 25 served by Defendants in Cruz, and by the plaintiff(s) in Cruz, Johnson, and 26 White “. . . including without limitation, special interrogatories, requests for 1 responses thereto, all documents produced, and/or deposition transcripts.” 2 (ECF No. 146 at 3-5). 3 Defendants objected to the requests as being vague, ambiguous, and 4 neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case because the 5 discovery conducted does not have any bearing on Defendants’ res judicata 6 defense. (Id.). 7 The Court sustains Defendants’ relevance objections. Defendants rely 8 on the final judgments in Cruz, Johnson, and White in their res judicata 9 defense, not on any of the discovery exchanged. Plaintiff offers no explanation 10 regarding the relevance of this discovery, and the Court finds it is not 11 relevant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO GARCIA, Case No.: 18cv0500-L-MDD
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION RE 13 DISCOVERY DISPUTE
14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., [ECF No. 146] 15 Defendants. 16
17 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for determination of a 18 discovery dispute filed on March 10, 2023. (ECF No. 146). The dispute at 19 present concerns several of Plaintiff’s requests for production and 20 interrogatories regarding the res judicata defense asserted by Defendants’, 21 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (collectively 22 “Defendants”). (Id.). For the reasons provided herein, Plaintiff’s motion to 23 compel production of documents and further responses set forth in the 24 parties’ Joint Motion Re Discovery Dispute is DENIED. 25 BACKGROUND 26 On November 4, 2021, Defendants sought permission from the Court to 1 amend their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint to add the affirmative defense of 2 res judicata in light of recent PAGA claim settlements in Johnson v. Wal- 3 Mart Stores, Inc., Cruz v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and White and Jackson 4 v. Wal-Mart, Inc. (ECF No. 95 at 4, 5). Defendants argue that the cases cover 5 the same claims as Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. (Id.). The Court initially denied 6 Defendants’ request, but on reconsideration, the Court granted Defendants 7 leave to raise their res judicata defense on summary judgment after Plaintiff 8 was afforded “. . . an adequate opportunity for discovery and investigation.” 9 (ECF No. 136 at 6). 10 District Judge Lorenz directed Magistrate Judge Dembin to “set a 11 schedule for Plaintiff to conduct discovery and/or investigation to respond to 12 Defendants’ res judicata defense.” (ECF No. 136 at 6). Judge Lorenz stated 13 the following in the order: 14 Plaintiff contends that there are “factual disputes as it relates to this proposed res judicata affirmative defense which would require 15 fact discovery to be conducted.” (Oppo. at 15 [ECF No. 105.]) 16 Defendants downplay any need for additional investigation and/or discovery, arguing that “determining whether res judicata applies 17 will involve comparing Plaintiff’s allegations here to the judgments 18 and other publicly available, judicially noticeable pleadings at issue in Johnson and Cruz.” (Mot. Recon. at 15). However, with regard to 19 the allegedly related PAGA cases, Defendants themselves 20 acknowledged, “[i]n some instances, it is not clear that the case is related,” indicating that Plaintiff will need to conduct research and 21 discovery to make those determinations. (See Notice of Related 22 Case at 3 n.3 [ECF No. 113.])
23 Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, the Court grants 24 Defendants leave to raise their res judicata defense on summary judgment, but only after Plaintiff is afforded an adequate 25 opportunity for discovery and investigation. 26 (ECF No. 137 at 5, 6). 1 Plaintiff served the Third Set of Request for Production of Documents 2 and Second Set of Interrogatories on Defendants on January 10, 2023. (ECF 3 No. 146-1 at 3). Defendants responded to the discovery on February 9, 2023. 4 (Id.). Plaintiff contends that Defendants refuse to provide “the research and 5 discovery” permitted by Judge Lorenz, and that Defendants’ responses to 6 Plaintiff’s discovery requests are limited to publicly available documents and 7 documents relied on in their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 146 at 8 16). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s discovery requests exceed the scope of 9 Judge Lorenz’s order, or the requests seek irrelevant and/or privileged 10 information. (Id. at 17-19). 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 The scope of discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined 13 as follows: 14 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to 15 the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 16 stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 17 importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 18 burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 19 admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 20 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). 21 Typically, the relevance standard is broad in scope and “encompass[es] 22 any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that 23 could bear on, any issue that is or may be in a case.” Doherty v. Comenity 24 Capital Bank, No. 16cv1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 25 9, 2017). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for 26 discovery purposes. D.M. v. County of Merced, No. 1:20cv00409-JLT-SAB, 1 2022 WL 229865, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2022) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 2 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) and Survivor Media v. Survivor Prods., 406 3 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005)). 4 District courts also have broad discretion to limit discovery to prevent 5 its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing courts to limit discovery 6 where the party seeking the discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain 7 the information by discovery in the action” or where the proposed discovery is 8 “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” “obtain[able] from some other 9 source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive,” or where 10 it “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 11 DISCUSSION 12 As will be discussed in further detail below, Plaintiff has not 13 demonstrated that the discovery requests at issue seek relevant, 14 nonprivileged information. Plaintiff continuously cites legal standards 15 without connecting the standards to his discovery requests. Plaintiff only 16 makes blanket statements, such as “. . . all of the discovery sought by 17 Plaintiff goes to Walmart’s res judicata defense and whether it is viable.” (Id. 18 at 20). Plaintiff also states, “In many instances in litigation, the parties will 19 state the substance of their claims in said documents” (referring to discovery 20 propounded in the prior cases, the pleadings, the mediation briefs, and drafts 21 of settlement agreements). (ECF No. 146 at 16). Plaintiff, however, cites no 22 authority that such information is relevant to a res judicata defense. 23 A. Request for Production Nos. 50-53 24 Request for Production Nos. 50-53 seek “all discovery” conducted and/or 25 served by Defendants in Cruz, and by the plaintiff(s) in Cruz, Johnson, and 26 White “. . . including without limitation, special interrogatories, requests for 1 responses thereto, all documents produced, and/or deposition transcripts.” 2 (ECF No. 146 at 3-5). 3 Defendants objected to the requests as being vague, ambiguous, and 4 neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case because the 5 discovery conducted does not have any bearing on Defendants’ res judicata 6 defense. (Id.). 7 The Court sustains Defendants’ relevance objections. Defendants rely 8 on the final judgments in Cruz, Johnson, and White in their res judicata 9 defense, not on any of the discovery exchanged. Plaintiff offers no explanation 10 regarding the relevance of this discovery, and the Court finds it is not 11 relevant. See In re Schimmels, 127 F.3d 875, 881 (9th Cir.1997) (“The 12 doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits bars 13 further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.”); 14 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing courts to limit discovery where 15 the discovery “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 16 B. Request for Production Nos. 54-62 17 Request for Production Nos. 54-56 seek “. . . all mediation briefs by any 18 party” in Cruz, Johnson, and White.” (ECF No. 146 at 5-6). 19 Request for Production Nos. 57-59 seek “. . . all documents relating to 20 any agreements” in Cruz, Johnson, and White “. . . including without 21 limitation, any drafts or settlement agreements, communications regarding 22 settlement agreements.” (ECF No. 146 at 6-8). 23 Request for Production Nos. 60-62 seek “. . . all documents reflecting 24 any oral and/or written communications between your [Defendants’] counsel 25 and counsel for any plaintiff” in Cruz, Johnson, and White “. . . which refer to 26 Plaintiff’s action, including without limitation, texts, emails, and/or letters.” 1 Defendants objected to each of the requests as seeking information 2 protected by the confidential settlement privilege, attorney-client privilege, or 3 attorney-work product doctrine, and asserted that any responsive documents 4 are neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. (Id. at 5-8). 5 The Court sustains Defendants’ privilege objections. As Defendants 6 state, mediation briefs, settlement communications, and communications 7 between Defendants and their counsel are protected. See Karubian v. Kaiser 8 Ventures, LLC, No. EDCV 17-597 PSG (EX), 2018 WL 10517183, at *4 (C.D. 9 Cal. Oct. 17, 2018) (finding emails and draft documents exchanged in the 10 course of mediation protected by the mediation privilege and holding “email 11 communications, draft settlement agreements, and draft motions should be 12 precluded in any proceeding before this Court”); Folb v. Motion Picture Indus. 13 Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff'd, 14 216 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (adopting a federal mediation privilege and 15 precluding discovery of mediation briefs). 16 The Court also sustains Defendants’ relevance objections. Plaintiff’s 17 requests seek information outside the scope of discovery. Defendants rely on 18 the final judgments in Cruz, Johnson, and White in their res judicata defense, 19 not on mediation briefs, communications, or draft settlement agreements. 20 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing courts to limit discovery where the 21 discovery “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”); see also In re 22 Schimmels, 127 F.3d at 875, 881. 23 C. Request for Production Nos. 66-68 24 Request for Production Nos. 66-68 seek “. . . any and all dispositive 25 motions (including moving papers, oppositions, replies and orders)” filed in 26 Cruz, White, and Johnson “. . . including but not limited to motions pursuant 1 Procedure and/or California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 382, 430-430.70, 2 435-438, 472, 473, and 2017.010, et seq.” (ECF No. 146 at 10-12). 3 Defendants objected to the requests as being neither relevant nor 4 proportional to the needs of the cause because dispositive motions do not 5 have any bearing on Defendant’s res judicata defense. (Id.). 6 The Court sustains Defendants’ objection. Res judicata considers the 7 claims asserted in a case’s final judgment. See In re Schimmels, 127 F.3d at 8 875, 881. Plaintiff has made no showing as to how dispositive motions have 9 any bearing on countering Defendants’ res judicata defense. 10 The dispositive motions, moreover, are accessible to the public. 11 Defendants provided Plaintiff with the case names, case numbers, and the 12 specific court where the actions, upon which they rely on their res judicata 13 defense, were brought. Plaintiff can acquire the dispositive motions he seeks 14 without Court intervention or Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 26(b)(2) (instructing courts to limit discovery where the party seeking the 16 discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information”). 17 D. Request for Production Nos. 69-71 18 Request for Production Nos. 69-71 seek “. . . the deposition transcripts 19 of any plaintiff” in Cruz, White, and Johnson. (ECF No. 146 at 12-13). 20 Defendants objected to the requests as being neither relevant nor 21 proportional to the needs of the cause because deposition transcripts do not 22 have any bearing on Defendant’s res judicata defense. (Id.). 23 The Court sustains Defendants’ relevance objection. Plaintiff has made 24 no showing as to how deposition transcripts are relevant or proportional for 25 responding to Defendants’ res judicata defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) 26 (instructing courts to limit discovery where the discovery “is outside the scope 1 E. Interrogatory Nos. 5-6 2 Interrogatory No. 5 asks Defendants to “. . . identify each and every 3 lawsuit filed against you [Defendants] by any plaintiff on or after November 4 21, 2016, in the State of California alleging a violation of the Private 5 Attorneys General Act premised upon the violation of Labor Code § 203.” 6 (ECF No. 146 at 13-14). 7 Interrogatory No. 6 asks Defendants to “. . . Identify each and every 8 written notice submitted against you [Defendants] by and/or on behalf of any 9 current or former employee to the Labor Workforce Development Agency on 10 or after November 21, 2016, in the State of California alleging a violation of 11 the Private Attorneys General Act premised upon a violation of Labor Code § 12 203.” (ECF No. 146 at 14-15). 13 Defendants objected to the interrogatories as seeking information 14 neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case, and as exceeding 15 the scope of the Court’s order permitting discovery regarding Defendants’ res 16 judicata defense. (Id. at 13-15). 17 Plaintiff asserts that the interrogatories seek relevant information 18 because if Defendants filed a notice of related cases in other unnamed 19 lawsuits, it would support an argument of prejudice and judicial estoppel. 20 (ECF No. 146 at 20-21). Defendants, however, correctly argue that the 21 interrogatories exceed the scope of discovery. Judge Lorenz permitted limited 22 discovery for the purpose of responding to Defendants’ res judicata defense, 23 which only relies on the judgments in Johnson, Cruz, and White. See Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing courts to limit discovery where the discovery “is 25 outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 26 / / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and further 3 ||responses set forth in the parties’ Joint Motion Re Discovery Dispute is 4 || DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 11, 2023 Vitel □□ □ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27