Morgan v. Rohr, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00574
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MORGAN and MICHAEL Case No.: 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG BEVAN, individually and on behalf of 12 ORDER RESOLVING JOINT others similarly situated, MOTION REGARDING MOTIONS 13 Plaintiffs, TO COMPEL 14 v. [ECF No. 145] 15 ROHR, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion, Opposition to Compel Responses to 19 Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One. ECF No. 20 145. The Joint Motion concerns Defendants’ request, pursuant to Rules 33 and 36 of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide supplemental 22 responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) Nos. 9-11, 17-20 and the 23 Special Interrogatories (“ROGs”) corresponding to those RFAs, as well as further 24 supplemental responses to Defendants’ ROGs Nos. 5, 6, 15 and 21-23. 25 Additionally, Plaintiffs raise a new issue in the Joint Motion that arose the day the 26 motion was filed, during the deposition of witness Jose Hernandez, a Rohr employee who 27 submitted a complaint to the California Department of Labor about Defendants’ break 28 policies. Defense counsel introduced a document as an exhibit during Mr. Hernandez’s 1 deposition reflecting Mr. Hernandez’s written complaint regarding Defendants’ break 2 policies during the class period. Plaintiffs contend that these documents were responsive 3 to multiple discovery requests previously propounded by Plaintiffs, one of which sought 4 all documents related to complaints made by covered employees during the covered period 5 that relate to the claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and another of which sought all documents 6 evidencing or reflecting any amounts owed or required to be paid by Defendant in 7 connection with Mr. Hernandez’s case with the California Department of Labor. See ECF 8 No. 145 at 13. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have improperly withheld these and possibly 9 other responsive documents, in violation of their ongoing duty to supplement discovery 10 responses, and ask the Court to compel Defendants to produce all responsive documents. 11 Id. at 13-14. 12 Upon consideration of the parties’ briefing, and for the reasons explained more fully 13 below, the Court will DENY in part and GRANT in part Defendants’ motion to compel, 14 and will GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 On February 1, 2023, the Court held a Discovery Conference in this matter at the 17 parties’ request to address a number of discovery disputes between the parties. ECF No. 18 140. The issues addressed during the conference included the named Plaintiffs’ disputed 19 responses to (1) Defendant Rohr, Inc’s Requests for Admission to Plaintiffs Nathaniel 20 Morgan and Michael Bevan, Set One, Nos. 9-15 and 17-21; (2) Defendant Rohr, Inc.’s 21 Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs Nathanial Morgan and Michael Bevan, Set One, Nos. 22 1-25 (all); and (3) Plaintiff Morgan’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set Six), 23 Nos. 1-14. During the conference, the Court issued tentative rulings and guidance regarding 24 the disputes. Thereafter, the Court issued an order memorializing its tentative rulings, but 25 set a briefing schedule for the parties to engage in motion practice if either side wished to 26 be heard more fully on any of the disputes at issue. ECF No. 141. The instant Joint Motion 27 followed. ECF No. 145. 28 \\ 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates the scope of permissible 3 discovery, setting forth the familiar standard that parties may “obtain discovery regarding 4 any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional 5 to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In considering relevance and 6 proportionality, the Court looks to “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 7 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 8 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden 9 or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 10 Pertinent here, Rules 33 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern 11 interrogatories and requests for admission, respectively. Specifically, Rule 33 provides that 12 “[a]n interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Similarly, under Rule 36, “a party may serve on any other party a 14 written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters 15 within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions 16 about either; and the genuineness of any described documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). 17 Therefore, as is evident from the plain text of Rules 33 and 36, the relevance and 18 proportionality factors contained in Rule 26(b) and discussed above constrain the 19 permissible scope of all written discovery. Each of these rules incorporates those 20 constraints by reference. 21 There are three possible responses to a request for admission pursuant to Rule 36: 22 admit, deny, or state that the responding party lacks sufficient information to admit or deny. 23 The Rule further provides: 24 If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial 25 must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith 26 requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The 27 answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for 28 failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable 1 inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. 2 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). 4 The responding party must “undertake a ‘good faith’ investigation of sources 5 reasonably available to him or her in formulating answers to request for admissions (similar 6 to the duty owed in responding to interrogatories).” U.S. ex rel. Englund v. L.A. Cty., 235 7 F.R.D. 675, 685 (E.D. Cal. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) advisory committee’s note 8 to 1970 amendment (“The revised rule requires [] that the answering party make reasonable 9 inquiry and secure such knowledge and information as are readily obtainable by him.”). A 10 “reasonable inquiry” is “limited to persons and documents within the responding party’s 11 control (e.g., its employees, partners, corporate affiliates, etc.).” Englund, 235 F.R.D. at 12 685. Thus, under the Rule, the responding party has a “duty” to obtain information “from 13 persons and entities over which it has actual control.” Id. If a responding party fails to admit 14 or deny a matter “where the information known or readily obtainable after reasonable 15 inquiry was sufficient to enable the answering party to admit or deny[,]” the Court may, as 16 a sanction, deem the matter admitted. Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 17 1245 (9th Cir. 1981). On the other hand, if a party fails to carry out his duty to undertake a 18 reasonable inquiry by informing himself before answering, that party may be subject to 19 Rule 37(c) sanctions in the award of costs after trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) advisory 20 committee’s note to 1970 amendment; Englund, 235 F.R.D. at 685. 21 As mentioned above, Defendants style their request as a motion to compel. However, 22 Rule 37(a)(3)(B) describes the types of discovery that are appropriate subjects of a motion 23 to compel discovery responses, including deposition questions, 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4) 24 designations, interrogatories, and requests for production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i)- 25 (iv). A requesting party who wishes to challenge the sufficiency of a response to a request 26 27 28 1 for admission must instead do so pursuant to Rule 36(a)(6). Under that provision, the 2 requesting party “may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection.” Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). Unless the Court finds an objection justified, it must order than an 4 answer be served. Id. Further, if the Court finds that an answer does not comply with Rule 5 36, the Court “may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be 6 served.” Id. 7 The party moving to compel discovery has the burden of demonstrating that the 8 discovery sought meets the relevance, proportionality, and other requirements of Rule 26. 9 Hegarty v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-06006-MMC (RMI), 2021 WL 10 4899482, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021); see also Starkey v. Hernandez, No. 3:17-CV- 11 01158-JLS-KSC, 2018 WL 6075809, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018) (“When a party 12 objects to a discovery request, it is the burden of the party moving to compel to demonstrate 13 why the objection is not justified. As the moving party, plaintiff has the burden of 14 informing the Court why the information he seeks is relevant and proportional to the needs 15 of the case”) (internal citations omitted); Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., No. 09-04057 RS- 16 PSG, 2011 WL 5854397, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) (“To succeed on a motion to 17 compel, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to the 18 requested discovery and has satisfied the proportionality and other requirements of Rule 19 26”). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 In the Joint Motion, Defendants request that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide 22 supplemental responses to the following written discovery requests, which are separated 23 by category: 24 25 26 1 Defendants also seek to compel supplemental responses to the special interrogatories 27 corresponding to the RFAs at issue, an issue which is appropriately raised via a motion to compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii). 28 1 (1) RFAs 9-11 and 19, and the corresponding Special ROGs 9-11 and 19 (seeking 2 admissions that “at least one CLASS MEMBER” or “some CLASS MEMBERS” were not 3 subject to certain meal period and wage statement violations alleged by Plaintiffs, and the 4 factual bases for any answers that were not unqualified admissions); 5 (2) RFAs 17-18, 20, and the corresponding Special ROGs 17-18 and 20 (seeking 6 admissions that the individual Plaintiffs “do not know” certain information regarding other 7 class members’ meal periods and wage statements, and the factual bases for any answers 8 that were not unqualified admissions); 9 (3) ROGs 15 and 21-22 (seeking the factual grounds upon which Plaintiffs rested 10 their responses to RFAs demanding the Plaintiffs admit they “do not know” certain 11 information regarding cessation of operations during meal periods and their receipt of 12 bonus payments, as well as the factual grounds supporting their responses to a request for 13 admission that class members received a paid wash-up period before meal periods); 14 (4) ROG 23 (seeking the identities of all employees who missed meal periods during 15 the class period, but only within the individual Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge); and 16 (5) ROGs 5-6 (seeking the factual grounds upon which Plaintiffs rested their 17 responses to RFAs regarding whether Defendant Rohr, Inc. correctly calculated the regular 18 rate of pay for compensation and provided legally compliant wage statements). ECF No. 19 145 at 4-13. 20 Additionally, in the Joint Motion, Plaintiffs raise a new issue that arose during the 21 February 24, 2023 deposition of class member Jose Hernandez. Id. at 13. Specifically, 22 during the deposition, Defendants introduced a document as an exhibit reflecting a written 23 complaint that Mr. Hernandez submitted regarding Defendants’ break policies during the 24 class period. Id. Plaintiffs contend that this document is responsive to at least two of its 25 Requests for Production but was improperly withheld, indicating that Defendants may be 26 withholding other responsive documents. Id. at 13-14. Therefore, Plaintiffs asks that 27 Defendants be ordered to comply with the ongoing requirement to supplement their 28 responses to discovery requests by producing all responsive documents. Id. 1 The Court will discuss the disputed written discovery responses raised by 2 Defendants before turning to the issue raised by Plaintiffs. 3 A. Defense RFAs 9-11, 17-20, and corresponding ROGs 4 Defendant’s RFAs 9-11 and 17-202 are as follows: 5 RFA No. 9: Admit for at least one pay period during the CLASS PERIOD, some CLASS MEMBERS were not subject to any alleged failure by 6 DEFENDANT to provide legally required meal periods. 7 RFA No. 10: Admit at least one CLASS MEMBER was not subject to any 8 alleged failure by DEFENDANT to provide accurate itemized wage 9 statements.

10 RFA No. 11: Admit at least one CLASS MEMBER was not subject to any 11 alleged failure by DEFENDANT to properly record and provide legally required meal periods. 12

13 RFA No. 17: Admit YOU do not know whether every CLASS MEMBER, aside from YOU, missed some of their meal periods because of work 14 demands. 15 RFA No. 18: Admit YOU do not know whether any CLASS MEMBER, aside 16 from YOU, missed all of their meal periods because of work demands. 17 RFA No. 19: Admit other CLASS MEMBERS waived their second meal 18 period during shifts of 12 hours or less. 19 RFA No. 20 (to Plaintiff Bevan): Admit YOU do not know whether other 20 CLASS MEMBERS, aside from YOU, Nathaniel Morgan, and Antonee 21 Harris, received itemized wage statements that included non-discretionary bonus payments. 22

23 RFA No. 20 (to Plaintiff Morgan): Admit YOU do not know whether other CLASS MEMBERS, aside from YOU, Michael Bevan, and Antonee Harris, 24 received itemized wage statements that included non-discretionary bonus 25

26 27 2 Defendant served nearly identical RFAs on each individually named Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court will not list the RFAs for each Plaintiff separately except where there is a 28 1 payments. 2 The corresponding interrogatories seek “all facts for which [Plaintiffs] base [their] 3 response” if their response to the corresponding RFA is anything other than an unqualified 4 admission. 5 Plaintiffs did not admit or deny any of these requests, instead raising a number of 6 objections, including but not limited to that the requests call for a legal conclusion, call for 7 an expert opinion, are premature, and call for speculation given that discovery was ongoing 8 and Defendants had not yet produced the complete set of time and pay data for the class 9 members following the class notice procedure. Plaintiffs also objected on grounds of 10 overbreadth, lack of proportionality, work-product and attorney-client privilege, and undue 11 burden, and raised vagueness/ambiguity objections to certain terms used in the requests. 12 Finally, Plaintiffs reserved the right to supplement their responses to the requests, noting 13 that discovery was ongoing. The Court will not discuss all of Plaintiffs’ objections in this 14 Order and will instead focus on those arguments raised in the briefing. See, e.g., Sherwin- 15 Williams Co. v. Earl Scheib of Cal. Inc., No. 12-cv-2646-JAH-JMA, 2013 WL 12073836, 16 at *2 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013) (deeming all objections raised in response to the 17 discovery requests but not addressed in the discovery motion to be moot or waived, and 18 limiting its review to arguments in the parties’ briefs). 19 During the conference, the Court issued its tentative guidance that these requests 20 were prematurely raised given that the parties’ deadline to exchange supplemental expert 21 reports and the deadline to complete expert discovery had not yet passed, and the matters 22 at issue in these requests overlap with the matters on which the experts are expected to 23 testify. ECF No. 141 at 2. In particular, these requests seek the personal knowledge of the 24 individually named Plaintiffs regarding whether Defendant Rohr, Inc. (“Rohr” or 25 “Defendant”) complied with the law governing meal periods and wage statements with 26 respect to “at least one” class member or “at least one” pay period, issues on which both 27 side’s experts have prepared reports based on their analysis of the time and pay data for all 28 class members throughout the relevant time period. For that reason, the Court anticipated 1 that Defendants might agree that they did not need to obtain such discovery through RFAs 2 once they had obtained the same information from expert discovery. Accordingly, the 3 Court set a follow-up discovery conference for March 6, 2023, to discuss whether 4 Defendants still felt supplemental responses to this written discovery were necessary after 5 receiving more information from Plaintiff’s experts on the same topics. Id. 6 Defendants elected to brief the issue instead, explaining in their motion to compel 7 that they specifically seek the individually named Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge on each 8 of these RFAs, and that they intended to use these RFAs “to test Plaintiffs’ personal 9 knowledge regardless of whether [Rohr] had the opportunity to conduct expert discovery.” 10 ECF No. 145 at 5. Therefore, the Court vacated the follow-up conference and took the 11 motion under submission. ECF No. 146. 12 In their motion to compel responses to these RFAs, Defendants argue that it is 13 appropriate to use RFAs “to prove the responding party’s personal knowledge (or lack 14 thereof).” ECF No. 141 at 2. However, the law Defendants cite in support of this 15 proposition is unavailing. First, Defendants cite Unicolors Inc. v. Kohl's Dep’t Stores, Inc., 16 No. CV 17-4073-GW (PLAX), 2018 WL 5274584, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018). In 17 Unicolors, the circumstances before the court were the inverse of the circumstances before 18 the Court now. That is, the plaintiffs there asserted lack of knowledge or information as a 19 reason they failed to admit or deny the RFAs. The court explained that an answering party 20 may assert lack or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny “only if the party 21 states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily 22 obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Id. at *8 (emphasis in original) (quoting 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)). Similarly, in another case cited by Defendants, S.E.C. v. 24 Goldstone, the court explained that if the defendants asserted lack of sufficient information 25 to admit or deny a certain RFA, “rule 36(a)(4) requires the Defendants to state that they 26 have undertaken a reasonable inquiry, and that the information they know or could readily 27 obtain is insufficient to enable the Defendants to either admit or deny. A reasonable inquiry 28 means that a party has to ask their counsel, and if their counsel knows the answer, they 1 need to use that information to admit or deny the RFA.” 300 F.R.D. 505, 526 (D.N.M. 2 2014). 3 These cases are in line with the general rule that a responding party may not limit its 4 responses to RFAs to the responding party’s own personal knowledge. Instead, the 5 responding party must undertake a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available 6 to him in formulating answers to RFAs, and may not assert lack of personal knowledge as 7 a reason for failing to admit or deny.3 They do not stand for the inverse proposition that 8 the requesting party is entitled to responses that are informed solely by the personal 9 knowledge of the responding party. Defendants argue that “if Plaintiffs lack such personal 10 knowledge, they should deny and provide the facts upon which they base their response, 11 including a lack of personal knowledge.” ECF No. 145 at 5. However, as already explained, 12 the responding party has a duty to undertake a reasonable inquiry by obtaining information 13 “from persons and entities over which it has actual control” before answering, and might 14 be subject to sanctions if he fails to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) advisory committee’s note 15 to 1970 amendment; Englund, 235 F.R.D. at 685. Defendants’ proposal that Plaintiffs 16 ignore their duty to obtain information reasonably available to them before answering and 17 to instead answer solely based on their personal knowledge (or lack thereof) is untenable. 18 For these reasons, the Court will sustain Plaintiffs’ objections that the requests are 19 premature, because they seek to limit Plaintiffs’ responses to information solely within the 20 individual Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge, before Plaintiffs have fulfilled their duty of 21

22 23 3 The third case on which Defendants rely, Diederich v. Dep’t of Army, stands for the proposition that a responding party cannot refuse to answer an RFA on the basis “that the 24 matter is already within [the proponent’s] knowledge,” because “the purpose of requests 25 for admissions are to seek [the responding party’s] agreements as to alleged fact.” 132 F.R.D. 614, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Defendants quote a headnote in the case stating that the 26 “proponent may compel recipient to admit or deny facts of which recipient has personal 27 knowledge,” but the text of the opinion actually deals with the propriety of compelling the recipient to admit or deny facts of which the proponent already has personal knowledge. 28 1 obtaining information from such sources as the expert reports, expert deposition testimony, 2 and other information obtained by counsel through discovery. 3 To the extent Defendants want to pinpoint exactly what the individual Plaintiffs 4 personally know, the attempt to obtain such discovery through RFAs is unduly burdensome 5 and not proportional to the needs of the case. The purpose of RFAs is to establish certain 6 material facts as true and thus to narrow the range of issues for trial. Asea, 669 F.2d at 7 1245. Therefore, just as a responding party cannot avoid being pinned down to facts that 8 are essentially undisputed by asserting lack of personal knowledge, neither can a requesting 9 party insist that the responding party provide an incomplete response based on solely his 10 personal knowledge, without reference to information that is reasonably available to them 11 through discovery. Inquiries into what the individually named plaintiffs personally know 12 are better suited for deposition questions than for RFAs. For that reason, compelling the 13 individual Plaintiffs to respond to the RFAs without reference to expert testimony or other 14 information obtained by counsel through discovery would be unduly burdensome and 15 disproportionate to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Frieri v. Sysco Corp., No. 3:16-CV- 16 01432-JLS-NLS, 2017 WL 3387713, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) (denying motion to 17 compel responses to interrogatories where “other means and methods [of] discovery, 18 including requests for admission and depositions, are better suited to obtain the relevant 19 information sought, rendering these requests unduly burdensome and disproportionate to 20 the needs of the case”); Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Ent., Inc., No. CV 04-9049 DOC (RNBx), 21 2010 WL 11463909, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2010) (finding a 30(b)(6) deposition topic 22 category to be “ill suited for deposition and better addressed through other methods of 23 discovery” and accordingly denying a motion to compel the responding party to produce a 24 30(b)(6) witness to testify on that topic). 25 Defendants had to the opportunity to depose the individual Plaintiffs on February 26 28, 2020 (Plaintiff Morgan) and February 8, 2021 (Plaintiff Bevan), and could have 27 obtained information from them at that time regarding matters within their personal 28 knowledge alone. ECF No. 149 at 3. That is the appropriate avenue to discover information 1 that is solely within the knowledge of the individual Plaintiffs. Defendants’ motion to 2 compel responses to RFAs 9-11 and 17-20 is accordingly DENIED.4 3 B. Defense ROGs 15, 21-22 4 Defendant’s ROGs 15 and 21-22 seek “all facts for which [Plaintiffs] base [their] 5 response” to the corresponding RFAs, if their response is not an unqualified admission. 6 The corresponding RFAs and Plaintiffs’ responses are outlined in the chart below: 7 RFA No. Admit YOU do not Plaintiff incorporates herein by specific reference each of the 8 15 to know whether aforementioned General Objections. Plaintiff objects that this Bevan operations ceased during request is unintelligible and lacks foundation – Plaintiff’s 9 meal periods during the employment with Defendant was not ultimately terminated in portion of the CLASS October 2019 and instead, Plaintiff has continued working for 10 PERIOD following Defendant up to the present date. Plaintiff further objects that YOUR termination on the request is harassing, oppressive and unduly burdensome – 11 October 16, 2019. including to the extent that it expressly purports to seek 12 information regarding departments and locations at which Plaintiff did not personally work. Plaintiff further objects to this 13 request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, and to the extent that it calls for an expert opinion. Plaintiff further 14 objects to this request on the grounds that it is premature and that discovery is ongoing at this time; for example, Defendant 15 has not yet produced the complete set of time/pay data for the 16 “CLASS MEMBERS,” which may bear on the response to this 17 18 4 Plaintiffs stated in their responses to the RFAs that they were willing to supplement 19 following further discovery and investigation, including review of the supplemental expert reports incorporating the data from Defendant’s most recent document production. 20 Defendant, however, has made clear that it is not seeking fulsome responses to its requests 21 encompassing all information available to Plaintiffs following a reasonable inquiry, including information obtained by their counsel through discovery. Rather, Defendant 22 wants to compel Plaintiffs to answer the requests based solely on the personal knowledge 23 of the individual Plaintiffs, even though many of the requests clearly require application of the law to the facts, which would be beyond the scope of the individual Plaintiffs’ personal 24 knowledge (e.g., whether Defendant provided “legally required” meal periods, or whether 25 Defendant’s wage statements were “in compliance with California Labor Code § 226”). As explained, the Court finds that using RFAs to “test[] Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge” is not 26 proportional to the needs of the case, particularly given that Defendant has had the 27 opportunity to inquire into the individual Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge of the facts through deposition testimony. Therefore, the Court will not require Plaintiffs to supplement 28 1 request. Plaintiff further objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information which is not relevant. Plaintiff objects to 2 the request to the extent that it is overbroad – Plaintiff’s response is expressly limited to Plaintiff [] individually based 3 on the definition of the term “YOU” as defined in the requests. 4 Plaintiff objects that this request seeks information in excess of F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(3)(A), including by seeking discovery 5 of documents or information prepared by counsel in preparation for trial or work product. Plaintiff further objects to the request 6 because it is compound, and because it seeks information equally or more available to Defendant. Plaintiff further objects 7 to this request because it seeks information protected by the 8 attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other protection or immunity. Plaintiff objects that this 9 request fails to satisfy the proportionality requirement for federal discovery as set forth in F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1). 10 Plaintiff objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible, including but not limited to, with respect to the 11 terms “shifts,” “cease,” “facilities” and “which YOU did not 12 work.” Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to 13 this request, while denying any obligation to do so. 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE served 2/9/23: Plaintiff hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s 15 original objections to this request. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: The 16 request lacks foundation with respect to the purported 17 termination date; Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant as of the date of these responses. Subject to Plaintiff’s 18 understanding of this request, deny. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to 19 supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any obligation to do so. 20 21 RFA No. Admit YOU do not Plaintiff incorporates herein by specific reference each of the 15 to know whether aforementioned General Objections. Plaintiff further objects 22 Morgan operations ceased during that the request is harassing, oppressive and unduly burdensome 23 meal periods during the – including to the extent that it expressly purports to seek portion of the CLASS information regarding departments and locations at which 24 PERIOD following Plaintiff did not personally work. Plaintiff further objects to this YOUR termination on request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, and to 25 December 9, 2016. the extent that it calls for an expert opinion. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it is premature and 26 that discovery is ongoing at this time; for example, Defendant 27 has not yet produced the complete set of time/pay data for the “CLASS MEMBERS,” which may bear on the response to this 28 request. Plaintiff further objects to the request to the extent that 1 it seeks information which is not relevant. Plaintiff objects to the request to the extent that it is overbroad – Plaintiff’s 2 response is expressly limited to Plaintiff individually based on the definition of the term “YOU” as defined in the requests. 3 Plaintiff objects that this request seeks information in excess of 4 F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(3)(A), including by seeking discovery of documents or information prepared by counsel in preparation 5 for trial or work product. Plaintiff further objects to the request because it is compound, and because it seeks information 6 equally or more available to Defendant. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks information protected by the 7 attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and 8 any other protection or immunity. Plaintiff objects that this request fails to satisfy the proportionality requirement for 9 federal discovery as set forth in F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, and 10 unintelligible, including but not limited to, with respect to the terms “shifts,” “cease,” “facilities” and “which YOU did not 11 work.” Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff 12 reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any obligation to do so. 13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE served 2/9/23: Plaintiff 14 hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original objections to this request. Subject to and without 15 waiving such objections, and subject to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, Plaintiff responds as follows: 16 deny. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff 17 reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any obligation to do so. 18 19 RFA No. Admit YOU do not Plaintiff incorporates herein by specific reference each of the 21 know why YOU aforementioned General Objections. Plaintiff further objects 20 received any bonus that the request is harassing, oppressive and unduly payments. burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the 21 grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, and to the extent that it calls for an expert opinion. Plaintiff further objects to 22 this request on the grounds that it is premature and that 23 discovery is ongoing at this time; for example, Defendant has not yet produced the complete set of time/pay data for the 24 “CLASS MEMBERS,” which may bear on the response to this request. Plaintiff further objects to the request to the extent that 25 it seeks information which is not relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s 26 response is expressly limited to Plaintiff [] individually based 27 on the definition of the term “YOU” as defined in the requests. Plaintiff objects that this request seeks information in excess of 28 F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(3)(A), including by seeking discovery 1 of documents or information prepared by counsel in preparation for trial or work product. Plaintiff further objects to 2 the request because it is compound, and because it seeks information equally or more available to Defendant. Plaintiff 3 further objects to this request because it seeks information 4 protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other protection or immunity. 5 Plaintiff objects that this request fails to satisfy the proportionality requirement for federal discovery as set forth in 6 F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff objects that the request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unintelligible as to “bonus 7 payments” and as to time. Discovery and investigations are 8 ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any 9 obligation to do so. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE served 2/9/23: Plaintiff hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s 11 original objections to this request. Subject to and without waiving such objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Subject 12 to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, deny. Discovery 13 and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while 14 denying any obligation to do so. 15 RFA No. Admit that during the Plaintiff incorporates herein by specific reference each of the 16 22 CLASS PERIOD, aforementioned General Objections. Plaintiff further objects CLASS MEMBERS that the request is harassing, oppressive and unduly 17 received a five minute, burdensome—including to the extent that it expressly purports paid wash-up period to seek information regarding departments and locations at 18 before taking a meal which Plaintiff [Morgan/Bevan] did not personally work. 19 period. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for a legal conclusion, and to the extent that it calls for an 20 expert opinion. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it is premature and that discovery is ongoing at 21 this time; for example, Defendant has not yet produced the complete set of time/pay data for the “CLASS MEMBERS,” 22 which may bear on the response to this request. Plaintiff further 23 objects to the request to the extent that it seeks information which is not relevant. Plaintiff objects to the request to the 24 extent that it is overbroad – Plaintiff’s response is expressly limited to Plaintiff [Morgan/Bevan] individually based on the 25 definition of the term “YOU” as defined in the requests. Plaintiff objects that this request seeks information in excess of 26 F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(3)(A), including by seeking discovery 27 of documents or information prepared by counsel in preparation for trial or work product. Plaintiff further objects to 28 the request because it is compound, and because it seeks 1 information equally or more available to Defendant. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks information 2 protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and any other protection or immunity. 3 Plaintiff objects that this request fails to satisfy the 4 proportionality requirement for federal discovery as set forth in F. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiff objects that the request is 5 vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: 6 Subject to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, deny. Discovery and investigation are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the 7 right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, 8 while denying any obligation to do so. 9 10 Plaintiffs supplemented their responses to ROGs 15 and 21 on February 9, 2023, in 11 accordance with the Court’s tentative guidance during the Discovery Conference that 12 Plaintiffs should supplement their responses to RFAs 12-16 and 21 and the corresponding 13 ROGs. See ECF No. 141 at 1-2. Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to the corresponding 14 ROGs are as follows: 15 Supplemental response to ROG 15 (Morgan): Plaintiff hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original objections to this request. 16 Subject thereto, and subject to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, 17 Plaintiff responds as follows: PLAINTIFF’s response is based upon information available to PLAINTIFF and his counsel through discovery that 18 has been produced in this action to date, which pertains to the CLASS 19 PERIOD and not only to the period of PLAINTIFF’s employment. Discovery and investigations are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement 20 and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any obligation to do 21 so.

22 Supplemental response to ROG 15 (Bevan): Plaintiff hereby incorporates 23 by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original objections to this request. Subject thereto, and subject to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, 24 Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff was not terminated in October 2019, 25 and instead, has continued working for Defendant up to and including the date of these responses. PLAINTIFF has knowledge of policies and practices 26 throughout the duration of his employment, including after October 2019. 27 Discovery and investigations are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any 28 1 obligation to do so.

2 Supplemental response to ROG 21 (same for both Plaintiffs): Plaintiff 3 hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original 4 objections to this request. Subject thereto, and subject to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, Plaintiff responds as follows: PLAINTIFF and 5 other CLASS MEMBERS received additional forms of remuneration in 6 addition to their normal hourly wages, as evidenced and described in the testimony of DEFENDANT’s person(s) most qualified, policy documents and 7 other discovery produced in the action to date. PLAINTIFF and other CLASS 8 MEMBERS received additional remuneration including but not limited to, shift differentials, shift premiums, and non-discretionary bonuses. CLASS 9 MEMBERS received shift differentials/shift premiums, contract signing 10 bonuses, performance bonuses, among other forms of remuneration. Discovery and investigations are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves the right to 11 supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while denying any 12 obligation to do so. 13 Defendants argue Plaintiffs should be required to supplement their responses to 14 ROG No. 22 to outline the facts upon which they base their denials of RFA No. 22. ECF 15 No. 145 at 9. Because Defendant’s RFA No. 22 and the corresponding Interrogatory were 16 not discussed during the conference, Plaintiffs did not supplement their responses to that 17 ROG and argue that the motion to compel is improper for that reason. Id. at 16-19. 18 Additionally, Plaintiffs contend the request is “prematurely raised” because, like the other 19 requests addressed above, it implicates issues that overlap with expert discovery. Id. at 23. 20 For the reasons explained above with respect to RFAs 9-11 and 17-20, the Court 21 denies Defendants’ motion to compel a further response to ROG No. 22. RFA No. 22 and 22 the corresponding ROG pertain to whether class members “received a five minute, paid 23 wash-up period before taking a meal period” during the class period, and all facts on which 24 Plaintiffs base their denial of the same. These are issues on which both sides’ experts have 25 prepared reports and are expected to give testimony. Therefore, the Court once more finds 26 that there are better means and methods of discovery to obtain the information sought and 27 sustains Plaintiffs’ objections that the requests are disproportionate to the needs of the case. 28 Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to ROG No. 22 is DENIED. 1 Defendants next argue Plaintiffs’ responses to ROGs 15 and 21 are insufficient. With 2 respect to ROG 15, Defendants contend Plaintiffs “fail to state any facts and base their 3 responses on information ‘available to PLAINTIFF and his counsel through discovery that 4 has been produced in this action…’ [but ROG 15] does not seek the source of the 5 information upon which Plaintiffs rely, but rather the facts as to cessation of operations. 6 General citations to discovery as a source of information, but not to the information itself, 7 does not answer the Interrogatory.” ECF No. 145 at 8-9. Similarly, with respect to ROG 21, 8 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ responses do not address the substance of the 9 corresponding RFA; instead, the denial “is based on deposition testimony and Plaintiffs’ 10 belief that employees received ‘non-discretionary bonuses’, rather than their belief as to 11 the reason why they received bonuses. Responding that they received non-discretionary 12 bonuses does not answer the question as to why each received the bonus.” Id. at 9. 13 The Court finds Defendant’s arguments unavailing. RFA No. 15 asks the Plaintiffs 14 to “admit you do not know whether operations ceased during meal periods” outside of 15 the time period when the named Plaintiffs were individually employed (emphasis 16 supplied). Therefore, a denial of this RFA amounts to a denial that Plaintiffs lack 17 knowledge of facts outside the time they were individually employed. Because, as 18 explained above, Plaintiffs have a duty under Rule 36 to inform themselves of readily 19 available information before responding to RFAs, it is appropriate for them to explain their 20 denials by referencing the source of information regarding time periods when they were 21 not employed by Rohr. That is, the fact that Plaintiffs have access to information available 22 to counsel through discovery (and not just personal firsthand knowledge) is indeed the 23 basis of their denials of lack of knowledge regarding cessation of operations when they 24 were not working there. Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to ROG No. 15 25 is thus DENIED. 26 Turning to ROG No. 21, the corresponding RFA demands Plaintiffs admit that they 27 “do not know why [they] received any bonus payments” (emphasis supplied). Plaintiffs’ 28 corresponding ROG responses explain that the Plaintiffs and other class members received 1 bonuses such as “shift differentials, shift premiums, [] non-discretionary bonuses[,] 2 contract signing bonuses, [and] performance bonuses, among other forms of 3 remuneration.” This response properly explains that Plaintiffs do know why they received 4 at least some bonus payments—e.g., some of the bonuses were shift differentials, shift 5 premiums, contract signing bonuses, and performance bonuses. That is the reason they 6 denied the RFA. Neither the RFA nor Plaintiffs’ responses are limited to non-discretionary 7 bonuses. Defendants’ request to compel a further response to ROG No. 21 is DENIED. 8 C. Defense ROG 23 9 Defendant Rohr served the following Special Interrogatory No. 23 on the Plaintiffs 10 Morgan and Bevan: 11 ROG No. 23 (to Bevan): Identify all employees of ROHR, other than YOU, Nathaniel Morgan, or Antonee Harris who, to your knowledge, missed meal 12 periods during the CLASS PERIOD. 13 ROG No. 23 (to Morgan): Identify all employees of ROHR, other than YOU, 14 Michael Bevan, or Antonee Harris who, to your knowledge, missed meal 15 periods during the CLASS PERIOD. 16 Initially, Plaintiffs objected to these Interrogatories on a number of grounds, 17 including but not limited to that Defendants had exceeded the number of Interrogatories 18 permitted without leave of Court in violated of Rule 33, undue burden, overbreadth, 19 attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, cumulative/duplicative, that the 20 Interrogatories call for a legal conclusion, and that they seek information equally or more 21 available to Defendant. During the Discovery Conference, the Court instructed Plaintiffs 22 to supplement their responses and to affirm that they have produced all documents that 23 would be identified in response to this Interrogatory. Following the Discovery Conference, 24 each Plaintiff supplemented his response to ROG No. 23 as follows: 25 Plaintiff hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original objections and prior response(s) to this request. Subject thereto, and subject 26 to Plaintiff’s understanding of this request, Plaintiff responds as follows: 27 PLAINTIFF alleges that DEFENDANT’s common meal period policies applied to all CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD. CLASS 28 1 MEMBERS identities and contact information is equally or more available to DEFENDANT. Discovery and investigations are ongoing. Plaintiff reserves 2 the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while 3 denying any obligation to do so. 4 Like many of the requests already discussed, Defendants argue that this ROG seeks 5 information pertaining to Plaintiffs’ “personal knowledge of those they witnessed or 6 otherwise came to learn of missed meal periods.” ECF No. 145 at 10. Therefore, 7 Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ objections on the basis of undue burden, overbreadth, etc. 8 are meritless “because the interrogatory calls only for information within each Plaintiff’s 9 personal knowledge. . . . Rohr asks Plaintiffs to name only those employees who Plaintiffs 10 know missed meal periods. Rohr does not ask Plaintiff to list every employee who had a 11 late, short, or missed meal period.” Id. 12 However, like Rule 36, “Rule 33 imposes a duty on the responding party to secure 13 all information available to it.” Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1032 (E.D. Cal. 14 2010) (emphasis in original). See also S.E.C. v. Mazzo, No. SACV 12-1327 DOC (AN), 15 2013 WL 12172628, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (“A party answering interrogatories 16 has an affirmative duty to furnish any and all information available to the party.”) (quoting 17 7 James Wm. Moore, et al., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 33.102[1], at 33-72). 18 Therefore, Defendant’s argument is not well-taken. Interrogatories are not a means of 19 discovery that are well-suited for inquiries into the named Plaintiffs’ personal knowledge 20 alone, without reference to information available to them through discovery. Defendant’s 21 motion to compel a further response to this Interrogatory is therefore DENIED. 22 D. Defense ROGs 5-6 23 In the Joint Motion, Defendants raise an issue for the first time regarding the 24 sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ responses to defense ROGs 5 and 6, which correspond to RFAs 5 25 and 6. Defendants’ RFAs 5 and 6 seek the following information: 26 RFA No. 5: “Admit DEFENDANT correctly calculated the regular rate of pay for compensation for all CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS 27 PERIOD.” 28 1 RFA No. 6: “Admit DEFENDANT provided accurate and itemized wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code § 226 to all CLASS 2 MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.” 3 4 Plaintiffs raised a number of objections to these RFAs, but denied them subject to and 5 without waiving the objections. 6 The corresponding ROGs in turn request “all facts for which [Plaintiffs] base [their] 7 response” if their “response to [the corresponding RFA] is not an unqualified admission.” 8 Each Plaintiff served the following supplemental responses to the ROGS at issue on 9 February 9, 2023: 10 ROG No. 5 supplemental response [same for both Plaintiffs]: Plaintiff hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original 11 objections and response to this request. Subject to and without waiving such 12 objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying all 13 compensation owed to all CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD, 14 including for purposes of paying overtime, by failing to include all forms of remuneration when calculating the regular rate of pay (such as the value of 15 shift differentials, shift premiums, non-discretionary bonuses, the value of gift 16 cards, commissions and/or other forms of remuneration). Plaintiffs’ counsel’s trial preparations are ongoing, as is discovery and investigation in this matter. 17 Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this 18 request, while denying any obligation to do so.

19 ROG No. 6 supplemental response [same for both Plaintiffs]: Plaintiff 20 hereby incorporates by specific reference each of Plaintiff’s original objections and response to this request. Subject to and without waiving such 21 objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 22 failed to provide PLAINTIFF and all other CLASS MEMBERS with accurate and itemized wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code § 23 226, including by failing to provide wage statements accurately listing each 24 employee’s gross wages earned, total hours worked, all deductions made, net wages earned, the name and address of the legal employer entity, and all 25 applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the corresponding 26 number of hours worked at each hourly rate, in violation of Labor Code § 226 and IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001, § 7. For example, Defendants’ wage 27 statements failed to comply with Labor Code § 226 by failing to list all hours 28 worked and all wages earned by PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS MEMBERS, 1 including, in part, based upon DEFENDANTS’ policies and practices of not paying employees for all hours recorded as having worked, as well as 2 DEFENDANT’s practice of automatically deducting 30-minute meal periods 3 from employees’ time. As another example, CLASS MEMBERS’ wage statements failed to contain a calculation of the employees’ total hours 4 worked, and did not allow employees to simply add up the entries in the 5 “hours” column in order to calculate their total hours, because the “hours” column of the wage statements contained multiple entries that were not 6 attributable to hours actually worked. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s trial preparations 7 are ongoing, as is discovery and investigation in this matter. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend his response to this request, while 8 denying any obligation to do so. 9 10 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ responses to these corresponding ROGs are 11 insufficient, because they do not properly state all facts upon which they based their 12 responses, instead restating the allegations made in the lawsuit and giving examples of 13 violations. ECF No. 145 at 11-12. Plaintiffs argue their supplemental responses sufficiently 14 respond to the plain language of each request, and that Defendants “provide no basis for 15 what additional information could (or should) be provided.” Id. at 22-23. Although these 16 Interrogatories were not discussed during the Discovery Conference preceding motion 17 practice, the Court will address the dispute now. 18 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ responses are sufficient, and that Defendant has not 19 met its burden of demonstrating that compelling further answers is proportional to the 20 needs of the case. 21 RFA No. 5 asks Plaintiffs to admit that Defendant Rohr correctly calculated the 22 regular rate of pay for compensation for all class members during the class period, which 23 Plaintiffs denied. In response to the corresponding Interrogatory, Plaintiffs explained that 24 they denied this RFA on the grounds that Defendants “fail[ed] to include all forms of 25 remuneration when calculating the regular rate of pay (such as the value of shift 26 differentials, shift premiums, non-discretionary bonuses, the value of gift cards, 27 commissions and/or other forms of remuneration).” It is unclear why Defendant contends 28 these are not statements of fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs begin their supplemental 1 responses by stating that each Plaintiff “alleges” that Defendants failed to provide the class 2 members with accurate and itemized wage statements in compliance with California Labor 3 Code § 226, Plaintiffs then provide statements of fact forming the basis of that allegation. 4 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to ROG No. 5 is DENIED. 5 RFA No. 6 asks Plaintiffs to admit that Defendant provided accurate and itemized 6 wage statements in compliance with Cal. Labor Code § 226 to all class members during 7 the class period, which Plaintiffs denied. In response to the corresponding Interrogatory, 8 Plaintiffs explained that they denied the RFA on the grounds that Rohr “fail[ed] to provide 9 wage statements accurately listing each employee’s gross wages earned, total hours 10 worked, all deductions made, net wages earned, the name and address of the legal employer 11 entity, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during each pay period and the 12 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate, in violation of Labor Code § 13 226 and IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001, § 7.” Plaintiffs then give two examples of the wage 14 statements’ non-compliance with Labor Code § 226: first, that the wage statements 15 “fail[ed] to list all hours worked and all wages earned by PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS 16 MEMBERS, including, in part, based upon DEFENDANTS’ policies and practices of not 17 paying employees for all hours recorded as having worked, as well as DEFENDANT’s 18 practice of automatically deducting 30-minute meal periods from employees’ time” and, 19 second, that the wage statements “failed to contain a calculation of the employees’ total 20 hours worked, and did not allow employees to simply add up the entries in the ‘hours’ 21 column in order to calculate their total hours, because the ‘hours’ column of the wage 22 statements contained multiple entries that were not attributable to hours actually worked.” 23 Once again, Plaintiffs provided statements of fact to support their assertion that 24 Defendants did not provide the class members with accurate and itemized wage statements 25 in compliance with Cal. Labor Code § 226. However, to the extent Defendants argue that 26 Plaintiffs’ responses are ambiguous regarding whether additional factual examples exist to 27 support their denial, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs should be required to 28 supplement their responses to clarify whether any additional examples exist to support their 1 assertion that Defendants did not provide them and other class members with accurate and 2 itemized wage statements. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED with respect 3 to ROG No. 6. Plaintiffs must provide all facts supporting their denial or otherwise confirm 4 that the examples given reflect all of the supporting facts known to them at this time. 5 E. Deposition of Jose Hernandez 6 The Court now turns to the issue newly raised by Plaintiffs regarding where 7 Defendants are improperly withholding documents. As noted, during the deposition of 8 class member Jose Hernandez on February 24, 2023, Defendants introduced certain 9 documents reflecting Mr. Hernandez’s written complaint regarding Defendants’ break 10 policies during the class period, which were the subject of his complaint to the California 11 Department of Labor as well. ECF No. 145 at 13. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are thus 12 improperly withholding documents that are responsive to the following RFPs: 13 Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set Two, RFP No. 29: “All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence or constitute complaints made by COVERED 14 EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD which relate to any of the 15 claims alleged in the COMPLAINT.”

16 Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Set Six, RFP No. 3: “All DOCUMENTS evidencing or 17 reflecting any amounts owed or required to be paid by YOU to Jose Hernandez in connection with Case Number WC-CM-606794, as 18 determined by the California Department of Industrial Relation’s Labor 19 Commissioner’s Office.” 20 Id. 21 Defendants argue that to the extent Plaintiffs seek to compel documents relating to 22 Mr. Hernandez, any such motion would be premature because they have not met and 23 conferred or requested a discovery conference on the issue. In the alternative, Defendants 24 argue that any such motion would be meritless, because the document introduced during 25 the deposition is not responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests for production. Specifically, 26 Defendants explain that the document at issue is an “August 2018 grievance that he filed 27 with his union regarding a ‘Talking Point’ that allegedly changed rest period practices[.] 28 Failure to provide rest periods is not a certified claim.” ECF No. 145 at 12. Further, 1 Defendants argue the grievance is not responsive to the document requests, because it does 2 not concern a certified claim or “amounts owed or required to be paid” in connection with 3 Mr. Hernandez’s case. Id. at 12-13. 4 Defendants’ argument that the document at issue is not responsive to Plaintiffs’ 5 RFPs is not persuasive. Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 29 seeks all complaints (or documents 6 discussing or describing those complaints) made by covered employees during the covered 7 period related to “any of the claims alleged in the Complaint.” The request is not limited 8 to certified claims. Plaintiffs’ operative Second Amended Complaint contains a cause of 9 action for failure to authorize and permit required rest periods. ECF No. 33 ¶¶ 37-44. 10 Defendants are not entitled to unilaterally determine that the request should be limited to 11 complaints made by covered employees related to certified claims only. Discovery is 12 designed to be far-reaching and “is not limited to only those specific issues raised in the 13 pleadings[,]” let alone to only those claims that are certified by the Court. Soto v. City of 14 Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Courts should thus construe the question 15 of relevancy “‘liberally and with common sense’ and discovery should be allowed unless 16 the information has no conceivable bearing on the case.” Id. (citation omitted). 17 Moreover, Defendants are on shaky ground insofar as they mean to imply that 18 Mr. Hernandez’s complaint regarding rest period practices is not relevant to the case, given 19 that they introduced the complaint as an exhibit during Mr. Hernandez’s deposition. 20 Making the unilateral determination that these documents were not responsive to Plaintiffs’ 21 RFPs because they did not relate to certified claims (a parameter that is not present in the 22 request), only to introduce the documents as an exhibit during a deposition on the final day 23 of fact discovery, smacks of bad faith and gamesmanship. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 24 Defendants to comply with the ongoing duty to supplement their discovery responses is 25 GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to immediately produce all documents 26 responsive to Plaintiffs’ RFPs outlined above. In parsing the document requests, 27 Defendants should not limit their production to claims that have been certified but should 28 instead respond to the requests as stated. I IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED with respect 3 ||to Defendant Rohr’s Requests for Admission Nos. 9-11, 17-20, and the corresponding 4 || Special Interrogatories. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to Rohr’s Special 5 || Interrogatories 5, 15, and 21-23 are also DENIED. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ 6 || motion to compel a further supplemental response to Special Interrogatory No. 6. Plaintiffs 7 || must provide all facts supporting their denial of the corresponding Request for Admission, 8 || or otherwise confirm that their existing responses include all of the supporting facts known 9 || to them at this time. 10 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants to comply with their ongoing duty to 11 ||supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ RFPs is GRANTED. Defendants must 12 ||}immediately produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Set 13 || Two, Request 29 and Requests for Production, Set Six, Request 3. Defendants are further 14 || ORDERED to review their previous document productions to ensure they have produced 15 documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, as stated. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: March 23, 2023 0 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28