Ratcliffe v. Apex Systems, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BERNICE RATCLIFFE, Case No.: 19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 12 v. DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13 APEX SYSTEMS, LLC, REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 14 Defendants. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 15

16 [ECF No. 38]

19 Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of 20 a discovery dispute filed on May 21, 2020. (ECF No. 36). The Joint Motion 21 presents Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 22 numbered 1 and 2. 23 This is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges violations of the 24 California Labor Code. The First Amended Complaint, filed on January 14, 25 2020, alleges eight causes of action: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period 26 premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final 1 wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements; unreimbursed 2 business expenses; and unfair business practices. (ECF No. 22). Defendant 3 is in the business of placing contract employees at various businesses. 4 Plaintiff was an employee placed by Defendant and paid by Defendant on an 5 hourly basis. Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of all current and former 6 California-based hourly-paid employees of Defendant within the State of 7 California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing 8 of this Complaint to final judgment. (Id.). 9 LEGAL STANDARD 10 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 11 discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 12 defense and proportional to the needs of the case....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 13 “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence 14 to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to limit 15 discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 16 duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 17 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 18 An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of 19 under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must 20 answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with 21 specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by 22 “answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b). The 23 responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an 24 interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records 25 available to the interrogating party. Rule 33(d). 26 Prior to certification of a class, some discovery regarding the class may 1 942 (9th Cir. 2009)(“Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that 2 often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class certification 3 and that some discovery will be warranted.”). Discovery likely is warranted 4 where the requested discovery will resolve factual issues necessary for the 5 determination of whether the action may be maintained as a class action. 6 Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). 7 Plaintiff carries the burden of making either a prima facie showing that the 8 requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) to maintain a class action have been met 9 or “that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” 10 Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). 11 DISCUSSION 12 Interrogatories 1 and 2 ask Defendant to identify and provide contact 13 information for all former hourly employees from August 15, 2015 to the 14 present (Interrogatory No. 1) and all current hourly employees in California 15 (Interrogatory No. 2). Defendant objects primarily claiming Plaintiff has 16 provided no factual or legal support to obtain class-wide contact information 17 at this time. The Court agrees. Plaintiff makes no attempt to satisfy her 18 burden under Mantolete that this information is likely to produce 19 substantiation of her class allegations. Plaintiff offers no facts and no theory 20 to support her request for class-wide contact information currently and does 21 not even address the Mantolete standard. Significantly, Plaintiff has not 22 presented any evidence that her individual claims have been substantiated 23 by the disclosure of records relating to her employment with Defendant. 24 The cases cited by Plaintiff do not help her cause. In not one of the 25 cases is the Mantolete standard at issue or addressed. The issues addressed 26 in those cases mainly dealt with protecting the privacy of the individuals. 1 ||5892501 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010) (contact information of employees 9 ||identified as percipient witnesses); York v. Starbucks Corp., No. CV 08-7919- 3 || GAF-PJWx. 2009 WL 3177605, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2009) (privacy, not 4 || Mantolete burden); Wiegele v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., No. 06-cv-1330- 5 || JM-POR, 2007 WL 628041, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2007) (same); Ho v. Ernst 6 Young, LLP, No. C-05-04867-JF-HQL, 2007 WL 1394007, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 7 ||May 9, 2007) (same); Putnam v. Eli Lilly and Co., 508 F.Supp.2d 812, 813 8 (2007) (same); Babbitt v. Albertson’s, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19091, at*6- 9 ||17 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 1992) (relevance pre-certification, privacy, and 10 ||confidentiality, not Mantolete burden). 11 Plaintiff is not entitled to class-wide discovery on this record. Nor can 12 ||the Court find a basis to require even limited contact discovery without some 13 ||showing that it may lead to substantiation. See DeLodder v. Aerotek, Inc., 14 || No. CV-08-7919, 2009 WL 10674457 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009). 15 CONCLUSION 16 As presented in this Joint Motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is 17 || DENIED. Dated: May 26, 2020 uk s | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27