Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 10, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01257
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO HIRAM SANTILLAN, on Case No.: 21cv1257-H-KSC behalf of all others similarly situated 12 aggrieved employees, ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR 13 DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY Plaintiff, DISPUTE (PLAINTIFF’S 14 v. CONTENTION INTERROGA- 15 TORIES TO DEFENDANT) VERIZON CONNECT, INC., a Delaware

16 corporation, [Doc. No. 23.] 17 Defendant. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 20 Dispute. [Doc. No. 23.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling 21 defendant to provide supplemental responses to certain contention interrogatories. 22 Defendant responded to these interrogatories with boilerplate objections and by referring 23 to documents as permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). [Doc. No. 23, at 24 p. 16.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request 25 for an order compelling defendant to provide supplemental responses to certain 26 contention interrogatories must be GRANTED. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Background 2 Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint against defendant, his former employer, for 3 failure to: pay overtime wages at legal rate; provide meal periods; pay all wages; 4 reimburse business expenses; pay all wages in form of cash/check; furnish accurate wage 5 statements; and pay all wages at termination. The Complaint also includes causes of 6 action for unfair business practices and recovery of civil penalties under the Private 7 Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for violations of the Labor Code. [Doc. No. 1-2, at 8 pp. 3-37.] According to the Complaint, plaintiff worked as a salaried, non-exempt 9 employee of defendant from approximately January 6, 2020 to December 9, 2020. [Doc. 10 No. 1-2, at p. 5.] The Complaint does not include any further factual details outlining the 11 basis for the claimed violations of California’s wage and hour laws. 12 Discussion 13 Plaintiff served defendant with several contention interrogatories (Interrogatory 14 Nos. 7-10 and 12-15) seeking to learn defendant’s position as to why it believes it has 15 complied with California wage and hour laws. For example, Interrogatory No. 7 requests 16 that defendant state all facts which support its contentions that it paid “the appropriate 17 overtime pay rate” to class members during the relevant time. [Doc. No. 23, at p. 3.] 18 Defendant responded to these interrogatories with boilerplate objections and 19 references to specific documents that contain responsive information. [Doc. No. 23, at 20 pp. 1-15.] According to defendant, the referenced documents have already been 21 produced to plaintiff. [Doc. No. 23, at p. 20.] 22 In the Joint Motion, plaintiff argues that defendant’s responses to Interrogatory 23 Nos. 7 through 10 and 12 through 15 are not adequate, because it is not acceptable to 24 simply refer to documents in response to contention interrogatories. In addition, plaintiff 25 complains that defendant’s responses are not adequate, because they were not made 26 under oath as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3). ]Doc. No. 23, at 27 p. 16.] 28 / / / 1 Defendant argues that it has already provided plaintiff with adequate responses to 2 these interrogatories for several reasons. First, defendant contends that plaintiff’s 3 contention interrogatories are premature because the case is at the pre-class certification 4 stage; the parties have not yet had an opportunity to complete depositions and other 5 discovery on liability issues; and plaintiff’s theory of the case is unclear based on the 6 allegations in the Complaint. [Doc. No. 23, at pp. 22-23.] 7 Based on the status of the case, the Court finds that the subject contention 8 interrogatories are not premature. Class discovery was originally scheduled to be 9 completed by November 30, 2021, but the deadline was extended to January 31, 2022 10 and is now expired. [Doc. No. 14.] The February 21, 2022 extended deadline for the 11 filing class certification motions is fast approaching. [Doc. No. 20.] Thus, the class 12 certification stage of this litigation is nearly complete, and discovery on liability will need 13 to be completed regardless of the outcome of a class certification motion. In addition, to 14 the extent the basis for plaintiff’s claims is unclear, defendant has had sufficient time to 15 seek a more definite statement via motion practice and/or to propound discovery to learn 16 a more specific basis for each of plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court finds there is 17 no reason the parties should not proceed with discovery pertaining to liability forthwith. 18 Second, defendant argues that “allowing contention interrogatories at this stage 19 would effectively provide plaintiff an avenue to preview [defendant’s] opposition to class 20 certification, which would unfairly disadvantage and prejudice defendant.” [Doc. No. 23, 21 at p. 24.] However, without more, this argument is unconvincing. The subject 22 contention interrogatories appear to pertain exclusively to liability issues. Defendant 23 does not explain how its responses to contention interrogatories about liability issues 24 would allow plaintiff an unfair preview to its opposition to class certification when the 25 contention interrogatories pertain to liability issues. 26 Third, defendant argues that plaintiff’s interrogatories are “overly broad,” because 27 they seek “all facts” supporting defendant’s defenses to liability when plaintiff’s claims 28 are not specific and when significant discovery has not yet been completed. [Doc. No. 1 23, at p. 23.] As defendant argues, courts “will generally find [contention interrogatories] 2 overly broad and unduly burdensome on their face to the extent they ask for ‘every fact’ 3 [or ‘all facts’] which support[] identified allegations or defenses.” Hiskett v. Wall-Mart 4 Stores, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 403, 404-405 (D. Kan. 1998). “Interrogatories may, however, 5 ask for the ‘principal or material’ facts which support an allegation or defense.” Id. In 6 other words, this issue is easily corrected. Defendant is instructed to read the subject 7 contention interrogatories as requesting all the principal or material facts. 8 Fourth, defendant believes its responses to plaintiff’s contention interrogatories are 9 adequate because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) permits a responding party to 10 make business records available in response to an interrogatory “if the burden of deriving 11 or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 33(d). [Doc. No. 23, at pp. 20-21.] However, defendant’s argument is untenable. It is 13 obvious that the burdens are not equal under the circumstances. “[D]ocuments 14 themselves rarely, if ever, reveal contentions of fact or law. A party reveals its 15 contentions.” U.S. S.E.C. v. Elfindepan, S.A., 206 F.R.D. 574, 576 (M.D.N.C. 2002). 16 “[T]he answers to the interrogatories cannot fairly be derived from the records to which 17 [defendant] refer[s]. Each of the interrogatories at issue directs a plaintiff to ‘state the 18 facts’ supporting [defendant’s defenses to liability.] None of the interrogatories ask for 19 the evidence or documents supporting those [defenses].” In re Savitt/Adler Litig., 176 20 F.R.D. 44, 49 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). Accordingly, to the extent its contentions are known at 21 this juncture of the litigation, counsel must provide plaintiff with supplemental responses 22 that reveal those contentions in response to the subject interrogatories. 23 Conclusion 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for an 25 order compelling defendant to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7 26 through 10 and 12 through 15 is GRANTED. Within ten (10) days of the date this Order 27 is entered, defendant must provide plaintiff with supplemental responses to these 28 contention interrogatories that directly address the information requested. As required by 1 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3), defendant’s responses must be “under oath.” 2 || Fed.R.Civ.P. 33((b)(3). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: February 10, 2022 □□ 5 Mficae 6 Hori. Karen S. Crawford , United States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28