Paunovic v. OBI Seafoods LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN CASE NO. C21-884 MJP PAUNOVIC, individually and on 11 behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 12 Plaintiffs, COMPEL 13 v. 14 OBI SEAFOODS LLC and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, 15 Defendants. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Class Discovery and 18 For Clarification of Order Granting Conditional Certification. (Dkt. No. 51.) Having reviewed 19 the Motion, Defendants’ Opposition (Dkt. No. 63), the Reply (Dkt. No. 65), and all supporting 20 materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiffs Marija and Dusan Paunovic bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act 23 and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act against their former employers Defendants OBI Seafoods 24 1 LLC and Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC. (Complaint ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 1-1).) The Court has granted 2 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification of the FLSA claims and Plaintiffs’ Motion for 3 Class Certification has been filed and will note for a decision on July 7, 2022. 4 Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion to Compel to obtain class-related discovery. As

5 narrowed on April 15, 2022, Plaintiffs seek pre-class-certification document discovery from 6 Defendants related to: (1) the dates that wages were paid to each proposed class member and the 7 pay periods of the paychecks; (2) daily rates for quarantine pay for fish processors at all 8 processing sites, including those operated by Icicle Seafoods before Defendants’ takeover in 9 June 2020; and (3) hours paid to each proposed class member for each non-quarantine workday. 10 (See Declaration of Toby Marshall in Support of Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 10 & Ex. G (Dkt. No. 52); id. Ex. B 11 (Request for Production No. 3 (Dkt. No. 52-2 at 12-13).) Plaintiffs also seek a response to 12 Interrogatory No. 3, which asks Defendants to identify all proposed class members. (See id. Ex. 13 B (Dkt. No. 52-2 at 8).) But Plaintiffs have agreed to narrow the interrogatory to seek only 14 anonymized information.

16 A. Production Required 17 The Court finds Plaintiffs’ narrowed request for discovery to be appropriate at this stage 18 of the litigation. The information Plaintiffs seek relates to the proposed class, and the issues of 19 numerosity, commonality, typicality, and predominance. See Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., 20 Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, 663 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing class certification 21 requirements, generally). Defendants have offered no valid reason why they should not produce 22 the information and documents that have been requested. Defendants have identified no undue 23 burden or disproportionality in the request. Nor are Defendants’ boilerplate objections adequate,

24 1 as they advance no specific, valid objections. To be valid, objections to discovery must be 2 carefully and narrowly tailored to the discovery sought and advance legitimate reasons why the 3 discovery sought is improper. Defendants’ objections fail to meet this standard. Nor is the Court 4 convinced that Plaintiffs waited too long to make their request. Although the information would

5 likely have been useful if obtained before the class certification motion was filed, it remains 6 relevant. And the record shows Plaintiffs moved diligently to pursue the information, even 7 withdrawing an earlier motion in the hopes of resolving the dispute without judicial intervention. 8 On this record, the fact that Plaintiffs have already moved for class certification does not render 9 the production of this information irrelevant or improper. 10 The Court therefore ORDERS Defendants to produce within 10 days of entry of this 11 Order documents sufficient to show: (1) the dates that wages were paid to each proposed class 12 member and the pay periods of the paychecks; (2) daily rates for quarantine pay for fish 13 processors at all processing sites, including those operated by Icicle Seafoods before Defendants’ 14 takeover in June 2020; and (3) hours paid to each proposed class member for each non-

15 quarantine workday. Given that Defendants rejected Plaintiffs’ proposed sampling request, the 16 Court will not limit the document request to a sample. And the Court ORDERS Defendants to 17 provide a complete response to Interrogatory No. 3 within 10 days of entry of this Order, with 18 the information anonymized. 19 B. Clarification of Prior Order 20 As requested by Plaintiffs, the Court clarifies that its Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 21 Conditional Certification applies to all former employees of OBI Seafoods LLC, regardless of 22 whether they were “leased” from Icicle Seafoods or not. The Court understands that Defendants 23 wish to argue that some of the employees working at the fish processing sites were “leased” and

24 1 that they were not Defendants’ employees. But that argument has never been squarely presented 2 to the Court for a decision and the Court did not shape its Order on the Motion for Conditional 3 Certification to give credence to it. Defendants are free to present their argument at some future 4 point. But Defendants position at this point in the litigation is not a basis to limit the reach of the

5 Court’s Order on Conditional Certification. 6 C. Fees and Costs 7 The Court finds that attorneys’ fees and costs are appropriately awarded to Plaintiffs. 8 Having considered the record, the Court finds that Defendants’ opposition to the narrowed 9 discovery was not “substantially justified.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The record demonstrates 10 that Plaintiffs engaged in good faith efforts to resolve this dispute without the aid of the Court, 11 including by withdrawing an earlier motion to compel, engaging in multiple meet and confers, 12 and waiting weeks for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ narrowed request. Defendants have 13 not provided substantial justification for their objections and failing to respond in a timely 14 manner to the narrowed request from April 15, 2022. And Defendants’ Response brief fails to

15 advance a reasoned or justifiable opposition to the narrowed discovery sought. The Court finds 16 Defendants’ approach lacked substantial justification and that Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to 17 recoup the fees and costs in preparing their Motion to Compel. The Court therefore GRANTS 18 Plaintiffs’ request for reasonable fees and costs in bringing the Motion to Compel. But the fees 19 and costs may only include time and costs incurred from April 15, 2022 to the date of the Reply 20 to reflect the date by which Plaintiffs narrowed their request. Plaintiffs must submit their 21 statement of costs and fees within 10 days of entry of this Order. 22 23

24 2 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ narrowed request for additional class-specific discovery is 3 appropriate and GRANTS the Motion. Defendants must provide responsive materials as outlined 4 in this Order within 10 days of its entry. The Court also clarifies that its Order on the Motion for

5 Conditional Certification applies to all of Defendants’ employees, whether “leased” or not. And 6 the Court AWARDS Plaintiffs their fees and costs in bringing this Motion from April 15, 2022 7 to the date of the Reply brief. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to provide a statement of fees and costs 8 within 10 days of entry of this Order. 9 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 10 Dated June 22, 2022. A 11 12 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24