Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN TREVINO, et al., LEAD CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, Member Case No. 1:18-cv-00121 Member Case No. 1:18-cv-00567 13 v. Member Case No. 1:18-cv-01176 Member Case No. 1:17-cv-01300 14 GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER REGARDING INFORMAL DISCOVERY DISPUTE 16 (Docs. 226, 228) 17

18 19 Plaintiffs Juan Trevino, Christopher Ward, Linda Quinteros, Romeo Palma, Alberto 20 Gianini and Juan C. Avalos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this 21 consolidated class action against defendants Golden State FC, LLC (now known as Amazon.com 22 Services LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (now known as 23 Amazon.com Services LLC) (collectively, “Amazon”). Plaintiffs moved for class certification 24 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). (Docs. 96, 98.) On May 26, 25 2023, following a lengthy procedural history not recounted here, the undersigned issued amended 26 findings and recommendations that recommended granting in part and denying in part the motion 27 for class certification. (Doc. 205.) Specifically, the Court recommended the motion for class 28 certification be denied as to the following classes: Class 1 Unpaid Wage Class (Hours Worked 1 Claim Based on Control of Employees through Mandatory Exit Security Procedures); Class 2 2 Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Meal Periods); Class 3 Meal Period Violations for Controlled 3 Meal Periods; Class 4 Rest Periods Violations for Controlled Rests Periods; Class 5 Improper 4 Rounding Class; and Class 7 (Third Rest Period Class). The Court recommended granting 5 certification limited to the following classes: Class 6 (Invalid Second Meal Period Waiver Class); 6 Class 8 (Direct Violation of Section 226(a)(2) Wage Statement Class); Class 9 (Derivative Wage 7 Statement Class); Class 10 (Section 203 Subclass); and Class 11 (UCL Class). (Id.) 8 The amended findings and recommendations were submitted to then-District Judge Ana 9 de Alba. (Doc. 205.) On December 1, 2023, due to the elevation of Judge de Alba to the Ninth 10 Circuit Court of Appeals, the case was temporarily reassigned to No District Court Judge (NODJ) 11 until a new district judge was appointed. (Doc. 208.) In light of the assignment of the case to No 12 District Court Judge, the Court held a status conference with the parties on January 17, 2024. The 13 parties agreed to meet and confer to discuss potential settlement parameters and the opening of 14 discovery only on the classes recommended for certification. (Doc. 215.) 15 On March 14, 2024, due to the appointment of a new district judge, the action was 16 reassigned from No District Court Judge (NODJ) to District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. (Doc. 216.) 17 The findings and recommendations remain pending before the currently assigned district judge. 18 On March 20, 2024, the Court held a further status conference to address (1) Plaintiffs’ 19 request to reopen discovery and (2) the proposed settlement in the MDL action pending in the 20 Western District of Kentucky: In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards 21 Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 (W.D. Ky.). The 22 Court indicated its willingness to consider reopening discovery only on the claims recommended 23 for class certification and the PAGA claim. However, before opening such discovery, the Court 24 requested supplemental briefing from the parties concerning Plaintiffs’ request to reopen and 25 Amazon’s objections to reopening. (Doc. 219.) 26 On April 19, 2024, Amazon filed a letter brief objecting to Plaintiffs’ request to reopen 27 discovery. (Doc. 226.) 28 On April 23, 2024, Amazon filed a notice indicating that on April 18, 2024, the Honorable 1 David. J. Hale issued a memorandum and order in In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center 2 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 3 (W.D. Ky.). Judge Hale lifted the stay of proceedings in that action, denied the Trevino 4 Plaintiffs’ motion to intervene, and granted preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed 5 settlement, including by conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class and subclasses.1 6 (Doc. 227.) According to Amazon, the settlement administrator was to mail out class notice and 7 opt-out forms no later than May 22, 2024. A final approval hearing was set for August 16, 2024. 8 (Doc. 227 at 24, Ex. 1.) Amazon anticipates that the settlement will impact several of Plaintiffs’ 9 claims in this action predicated on security screening. (See Doc. 145.) Amazon intends to seek 10 relief from this Court as appropriate if Judge Hale grants final approval of the settlement and 11 enters judgment in the MDL action. (Id.) 12 On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted their response to Amazon’s informal letter brief 13 regarding discovery. (Doc. 228.) 14 To date, the parties have not provided information concerning the status of In re: 15 Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour 16 Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 (W.D. Ky.), including the status of the final approval 17 hearing and any impact on the pending action. 18 /// 19 1 Judge Hale conditionally certified the following class for settlement purposes: 20

All non-exempt employees employed by Amazon in California who worked at an 21 Amazon.com warehouse facility (fulfillment centers and sortation centers) (“Covered 22 Facilities”) from October 1, 2012, until the date that the preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is ordered (“Class Members”). 23 (a) The Pre-May 2013 Subclass is defined as: Those Class Members who were 24 employed by Amazon in California and who worked at an Amazon.com Covered Facility from October 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013. 25 (b) The Post-May 2013 Subclass is defined as: Those Class Members who were 26 employed by Amazon in California and who worked at an Amazon.com Covered Facility from May 1, 2013, until the date that the preliminary 27 approval of the proposed settlement is ordered.

28 (Doc. 227 at 23, Ex. 1.) 1 Informal Discovery Dispute 2 A. Amazon’s Position 3 Amazon maintains that any discovery is premature while they await a ruling from Judge 4 Sherriff on class certification. Nonetheless, Amazon has offered to (1) partially refresh its prior 5 production of pay, time and lenel (“badge swipe”) data, (2) produce additional wage statements, 6 and (3) produce additional data related to Plaintiffs’ meal period waiver claim. The parties 7 reportedly have agreed on the appropriate cut-off date for Amazon’s data productions, so long as 8 Amazon provides declarations confirming various dates related to the conduct at issue, which 9 Amazon has agreed to do.2 The parties also reportedly have agreed that Amazon need only 10 produce wage statements “that it can reasonably locate dated between July 12, 2016 and 11 December 31, 2018 that do not include a specific line item for total hours worked.” (Doc. 226 at 12 1.) 13 Amazon indicates that for two of the disputed issues—the scope of Amazon’s 14 supplemental production of pay, time, and badge swipe data, as well as data related to Plaintiffs’ 15 second meal period waiver claim—Amazon has proposed production of the following:

16 • Updated pay, time, and badge swipe data for Plaintiffs’ worksites through September 30, 2020, the last day that any of the allegedly unlawful 17 practices were still in place.

18 • Employee IDs, separation dates, and time and pay data for employees who were onboarded before November 12, 2018 (the date that Amazon updated 19 its electronic meal period waiver) and who signed a second meal period waiver. 20 21 (Doc. 226 at 2.) Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs have refused this compromise, and instead 22 demand production of statewide pay, time, and badge swipe data as well as personally 23 identifiable information of individuals who allegedly signed an invalid waiver. (Id.) Amazon

24 2 According to the exhibits attached to Amazon’s informal statement, Amazon has agreed to provide 25 declarations confirming the following:

26 (1) Amazon ceased conducting security screening in California on April 1, 2020, and ceased its rounding practice on September 30, 2020, (Doc. 226, Ex. A at 3); and 27 (2) Amazon revised its electronic meal period waiver on November 12, 2018, (Doc. 226, Ex. A at 4). 28 1 identifies the remaining disputes as involving Plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions, 2 including a second 30(b)(6) deposition, and any documents in support of Amazon’s defenses (as 3 well as identification of those documents). (Id.) 4 1. Pay, Time, and Badge Swipe Data 5 Amazon has offered to provide updated, pay, time, and badge swipe data through 6 September 30, 2020 for each of the California sites where Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs reportedly 7 have not objected to the September 30, 2020 cutoff date, which is the latest date by which all of 8 the challenged practices that implicate this data (security screening,3 rounding, and second meal 9 period waiver) ceased. However, Plaintiffs have insisted that Amazon provide this data for all 10 California employees, invoking their PAGA claims. 11 Amazon contends that statewide discovery on the PAGA claims is not appropriate at this 12 time and that the Court should order that Amazon need only provide the additional data for the 13 five sites where Plaintiffs worked. Amazon believes that tailoring of discovery, at this point in 14 time, to the sites where Plaintiffs worked is reasonable given that Plaintiffs will have to establish 15 that they were injured, noting the Court’s findings related to the security screening claims. 16 2. Second Meal Period Waiver Data 17 Amazon has produced, or offered to produce, nearly all of the discovery Plaintiffs need to 18 pursue their second meal period waiver and derivative claims. To that end, Amazon has produced 19 copies of all versions of the “second meal period waivers” that were in use prior to certification, 20 including the version Plaintiffs asserted was invalid. Amazon does not believe it needs to 21 produce any further second meal period waivers because the allegedly deficient meal break 22 waiver language was no longer used beginning November 12, 2018. 23 Amazon also has offered to produce the employee IDs, separation dates, and any 24 outstanding time and pay data for associates who were onboarded before November 12, 2018, and 25 signed a second meal period waiver. Plaintiffs reportedly have generally accepted this proposal, 26 but also insist that they need “the identity of employees who signed a purportedly ‘invalid’ 27 3 Amazon indicates that security screening remains in place at Amazon Air facilities in California, but 28 none of the Plaintiffs worked at any of those locations. 1 waiver” so they can “track such identities.” (Doc. 226 at 4.) Amazon believes this request is 2 premature and should be rejected. Specifically, Amazon indicates that the scope of pre- 3 certification discovery lies within the discretion of the district court and that courts in this district 4 have used that discretion to restrict the disclosure of full class lists prior to there being a fully 5 certified class. (Id.) 6 Amazon notes that no second meal period waiver class has been certified, and while 7 Amazon expects it will be, until counsel has been appointed class counsel Amazon asserts that it 8 would be inappropriate to turn over a class list. Amazon also already provided Plaintiffs with a 9 sampling of class contact information, which Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs can use to begin 10 identifying class members while the parties await Judge Sherriff’s ruling. While Amazon 11 acknowledges that Plaintiffs may ultimately be entitled to additional information, Amazon claims 12 it would be inappropriate and premature to provide that information now given the procedural 13 posture of this case and the fact that Plaintiffs have already had the opportunity to investigate the 14 merits of their claims during class certification. Amazon contends that once Judge Sherriff rules 15 on class certification, then the parties can revisit this issue as appropriate. 16 3. Depositions 17 Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs have broadly insisted on depositions of witnesses, including 18 Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, who have knowledge relative to the claims and defenses to any of the 19 certified claims or the PAGA claims. (Doc. 226 at 4.) Amazon argues that the Court should 20 reject Plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions at this stage. 21 As to 30(b)(6) witnesses, Amazon indicates that Plaintiffs have already conducted a Rule 22 30(b)(6) deposition in which they deposed two separate corporate witnesses. Amazon asserts that 23 Plaintiffs have presented no basis to this Court for yet another Rule 30(b)(6) deposition despite 24 Plaintiffs’ claim that discovery previously was limited to class certification issues. 25 As to 30(b)(1) witnesses, Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs also have presented no basis for 26 seeking additional depositions. Amazon points out that Plaintiffs have not identified a single 27 person they would like to depose or the basis for any deposition. 28 Amazon is willing to discuss the need for further depositions in the future, but contends, 1 among other things, that it makes no sense to require any witness to sit for a deposition before the 2 parties have certainty about which claims will proceed on a class or representative basis. 3 4. Documents Supporting Amazon’s Defenses 4 According to Amazon, Plaintiffs have demanded Amazon provide and identify “[a]ny” 5 documents supporting Amazon’s defenses. (Doc. 226 at 5, citing Ex. A at 11.) Amazon contends 6 that it has already disclosed documents that support its defenses, including by identifying 7 potentially relevant documents in its initial disclosures and, for example, by producing documents 8 in response to Plaintiff Trevino’s first set of requests for production, which requested “all 9 documents that support any denial asserted in [Amazon’s] answer to the operative complaint.” 10 (Doc. 226 at 5.) Amazon indicates that it will make supplemental productions as it locates more 11 documents. 12 Per Amazon, Plaintiffs also insist that Amazon identify the specific documents that 13 Amazon previously produced that “support Amazon’s defenses.” (Doc. 226 at 5, citing Ex. A at 14 6.) Amazon argues that this exceeds what is required by the Federal Rules, which permit a party 15 to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business” and does not require 16 correlating individual documents to specific requests or defenses, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 34(b)(2)(E)(i). 18 B. Plaintiffs’ Position 19 Based on Amazon’s statements, Plaintiffs seek a declaration from Amazon (1) affirming 20 that it discontinued its rounding practice on September 30, 2020, as has been represented; and (2) 21 affirming that Amazon ceased all security screening in California at the start of the pandemic, as 22 of April 1, 2020, and still does not conduct screening at its sites in California. (Doc. 228 at 1.) 23 1. Pay and Time Data 24 Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to pay and time data for all sites in California, not 25 just sites where each plaintiff worked, invoking their PAGA claims. Plaintiffs assert that they 26 have standing to pursue PAGA claims with respect to violations committed against all aggrieved 27 employees, not only employees at sites at which Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs further assert that 28 they are not required to establish that they were injured prior to engaging in discovery, citing 1 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 51-52 (2017). 2 2. Wage Statement Data 3 With respect to wage statement data, Plaintiffs argue that Amazon has a payroll database 4 with all the fields of information used in the generation of the wage statements, including 5 employee IDs, and the data can be exported to an excel spreadsheet. Plaintiffs claim they need 6 such information to determine which wage statements had no total for hours worked. Plaintiffs 7 have not agreed to limit their request to hard-copy wage statements, and they reportedly know 8 that Amazon has electronic wage statement data that should be produced. 9 Plaintiffs agree to the ending date limitation of January 1, 2019, but seek a declaration 10 from Amazon that states a total hours worked entry was on the wage statements as of January 1, 11 2019, and thereafter for all of Amazons’ employees. 12 3. Meal Period Waiver 13 Plaintiffs aver that they require a declaration affirming that “the allegedly deficient 14 electronic second meal period waiver was updated on November 12, 2018.” (Doc. 228 at 4.) 15 Plaintiffs also aver that they need the employee IDs, separation dates, time and pay data for 16 associates who onboarded before November 12, 2018 who signed the defective meal period 17 waiver at issue so they can track such identities. Plaintiffs believe that Amazon’s offer to provide 18 IDs of the employees who were onboarded before November 12, 2018 and signed a second meal 19 period waiver is too broad an agreement unless Amazon is willing to stipulate “that all second 20 meal period waivers that were signed before November 12, 2018 signed the same allegedly 21 deficient meal period waiver.”4 (Doc. 228 at 4.) 22 4. Documents and Facts Related to Defendants’ Defenses 23 Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to facts, witnesses, and documents upon which 24 Amazon is basing any defenses to the certified claims and PAGA claims. Plaintiffs indicate that 25 if Amazon has provided such facts, identity of witnesses, and documents, then they can respond 26 to an interrogatory and Demand for Production “with a verified response verifying such fact.” 27 4 While not entirely clear, this appears to be a statement that Plaintiffs seek a stipulation that all second 28 meal period waivers signed before November 12, 2018 were deficient. 1 (Doc. 228 at 4.) 2 Plaintiffs additionally assert that they are entitled to PMQ testimony as to any such 3 defenses. Plaintiffs contend that the discovery cutoff in this action reflected that only certification 4 discovery was allowed and PMQs were not questioned about defenses or PAGA claims. 5 Plaintiffs agree not to ask the same questions that they already asked. 6 C. Discussion and Analysis 7 1. Requested Declarations 8 Plaintiffs seek various declarations from Amazon affirming dates that Amazon 9 discontinued certain practices. To the extent Amazon has agreed to provide declarations 10 confirming various cutoff dates related to the conduct at issue as stated in its informal discovery 11 dispute letter, Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 12 Amazon shall provide relevant declarations that it has agreed to provide, and which confirm 13 various cutoff dates related to the conduct at issue. These include the following: (1) Amazon 14 ceased conducting security screening in California on April 1, 2020, and ceased its rounding 15 practice on September 30, 2020; and (2) Amazon revised its electronic meal period waiver on 16 November 12, 2018. The Court does not compel any such declaration for which Amazon has not 17 agreed. 18 2. Pay, Time, and Badge Swipe Data 19 Amazon has offered to provide updated, pay, time, and badge swipe data through 20 September 30, 2020 for each of the California sites where Plaintiffs worked. In contrast, 21 Plaintiffs seek pay and time data for all sites in California, not just sites where each plaintiff 22 worked, invoking their standing to pursue PAGA claims with respect to violations committed 23 against all aggrieved employees. 24 Plaintiffs are entitled to statewide pre-certification discovery because they have shown it 25 is warranted and because this is a representative PAGA action. See Harper v. Charter Commc'ns, 26 LLC, No. 2:19-CV-0902-WBS-DMC, 2020 WL 6158239, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020). The 27 Court, however, retains the discretion to limit such discovery, which it will do in this case. Id. 28 (exercising discretion to limit pre-certification statewide discovery to 10% random samplings and 1 complete contact list); Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., No. 2:16-CV- 2 00158 WBS AC, 2018 WL 402235, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018) (“Even in the context of 3 bifurcated discovery, the scope of pre-certification discovery lies entirely within the discretion of 4 the court.”). The pre-certification posture of this action wherein no claims have been certified 5 (based on the pending findings and recommendations) and the absence of a schedule for merits 6 discovery warrant a limit on pre-certification discovery. The updated pay, time, and badge swipe 7 data offered by Amazon is reasonable and proportional to the current needs of this action under 8 Rule 26. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for pay and time data for all sites in California is 9 DENIED without prejudice. However, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Amazon 10 shall provide updated pay, time, and badge swipe data for Plaintiffs’ worksites through September 11 30, 2020. As necessary and appropriate, Plaintiffs may renew their request for pay and time data 12 for all sites in California once the claims in this action have been clarified and a schedule for 13 merits discovery has been established. 14 3. Second Meal Period Waiver Data 15 Plaintiffs assert that the need the employee IDs, separation dates, time and pay data for 16 associates who were onboarded before November 12, 2018, who signed the meal period waiver at 17 issue. Although Amazon has offered to provide this information for employees who signed a 18 second meal period waiver, Plaintiffs appear to believe that such an offer is too broad. Plaintiffs’ 19 objection seems to be that Amazon has offered to produce more data than may be required. It is 20 not evident to the Court that additional discovery, beyond that offered by Amazon, is necessary. 21 To the extent Plaintiffs are requesting less discovery, they are in the best position to narrow their 22 own discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request related to second meal period waiver 23 data is DENIED at this time. 24 Insofar as Plaintiffs are seeking the identity of employees who signed the meal period 25 waiver at issue, Amazon has reportedly provided Plaintiffs with a sampling of class contact 26 information, which Plaintiffs can use to identify class members while the parties await a ruling on 27 class certification. Plaintiffs may renew their request as appropriate following any ruling on 28 certification. 1 4. Wage Statement Data 2 With respect to wage statement data, Plaintiffs argue that Amazon has electronic wage 3 statement data that should be produced in an excel spreadsheet, so that Plaintiffs may determine 4 which wage statements had “no total for hours worked.” (Doc. 228 at 3.) Plaintiffs have 5 explained that Amazon has a payroll database with all the fields of information used in the 6 generation of wage statements, Amazon can export that data into an excel spreadsheet, and 7 Plaintiffs can then determine which wages statements “had fields of data that included the number 8 of hours to determine if there were wage statements that had hours worked listed that double 9 counted other hours and made the total hours worked inaccurate when adding up the separate line 10 items of hours (where there was no total for hours worked.)” (Id.) It is not evident to the Court 11 that electronic wage statement data in an excel file will provide the necessary information 12 relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that certain wage statements failed to list total hours worked. Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). While an excel spreadsheet might indicate the fields of information used to 14 generate wage statements, the claim relates to whether the wage statement contains a line item for 15 total hours worked. Thus, it is the wage statements that are relevant. Amazon has agreed to 16 produce wage statements “that it can reasonably locate dated between July 12, 2016 and 17 December 31, 2018 that do not include a specific line item for total hours worked.” (Doc. 226 at 18 1.) For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for production of wage statement data in an excel 19 spreadsheet is DENIED without prejudice. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 20 Amazon shall produce wage statements that it can reasonably locate dated between July 12, 2016 21 and December 31, 2018 that do not include a specific line item for total hours worked. If, after 22 Amazon’s agreed-upon production, Plaintiffs believe that there are additional wage statements 23 that have not been produced, then they may renew their request. 24 5. Documents and Fact Related to Amazon’s Defenses 25 Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to facts, witnesses, and documents upon which 26 Amazon is basing any defenses to the certified claims and PAGA claims. However, Amazon 27 contends that it has already disclosed documents that support its defenses, including by 28 identifying potentially relevant documents in its initial disclosures and, for example, by producing 1 documents in response to Plaintiff Trevino’s first set of requests for production, which requested 2 “all documents that support any denial asserted in [Amazon’s] answer to the operative 3 complaint.” (Doc. 226 at 5.) Amazon also has agreed to supplement its responses as is required 4 by Rule 26(e). Based on amazon’s representation that is has disclosed or produced responsive 5 documents, Plaintiffs’ broad-based request for any documents upon which Amazon is basing its 6 defenses is DENIED. 7 Plaintiffs additionally request that Amazon identify the specific documents it previously 8 produced that support its defenses. However, the federal civil rules require a party to either 9 produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business” or “label them to 10 correspond to the categories in the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). Absent any indication 11 that Amazon failed to produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business, 12 Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED. 13 Plaintiffs additionally assert that they are entitled to PMQ testimony as to any such 14 defenses. At this juncture, the Court finds that any additional depositions—whether 30(b)(6) or 15 otherwise—would be premature. Requiring individuals to sit for depositions prior to certainty 16 about which claims will proceed on a class or representative basis would be inefficient and 17 impractical. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for further PMQ depositions is DENIED without 18 prejudice. As appropriate and necessary, Plaintiffs may renew their request for additional PMQ 19 depositions once the district court has ruled on the pending findings and recommendations. 20 D. Conclusion and Order 21 As detailed above, Plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery is GRANTED in part and 22 DENIED in part. (Doc. 228.) 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Given the procedural posture of this action, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amazon 2 shall file a status report no later than December 20, 2024, providing an update on the final 3 approval hearing and status of the Kentucky action: In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center 4 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 5 (W.D. Ky.). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

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