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