Randy Salinas v. The Cornwell Quality Tools Company, et al Case No. ED CV 19-2275-FLA (SPx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed January 22, 2021 Counsel Craig M. Nicholas, Shaun Andrew Markley, Ethan Thomas Litney, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, San Diego, CA, for Randy Salinas. Adam Yuda Siegel, Jackson Lewis PC, Los Angeles, CA, Jared L. Bryan, Richard B. Azada, Allyson Suzanne Ascher, Jackson Lewis PC, Irvine, CA, Robert M. Gippin, Pro Hac Vice, Roderick Linton Belfance LLP, Akron, OH, for The Cornwell Quality Tools Company, et al. Pym, Sheri, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [46] I. INTRODUCTION *1 On December 28, 2020, plaintiff Randy Salinas filed a motion to compel further responses to his request for production of documents from defendant The Cornwell Quality Tools Company. Docket no. 46. Plaintiff specifically seeks further responses to Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 51. The motion is supported and opposed in a Joint Stipulation (“JS”). Plaintiff's arguments are further supported by the declaration of plaintiff's counsel Shaun Markley (“Markley Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. Defendant's arguments are further supported by the declaration of defense counsel Richard Azada (“Azada Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. On January 5, 2021, defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum opposing the motion to compel (“D. Supp. Mem.”), which is supported by the supplemental declaration of defense counsel (“Azada Supp. Decl.”) and additional exhibits. Docket no. 48. On that same day, plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum in support of the motion to compel (“P. Supp. Mem.”), which is supported by the supplemental declaration of plaintiff's counsel (“Markley Supp. Decl.”) and exhibits thereto. Docket no. 49. The court found a hearing on the motion would not be of assistance, and so vacated the hearing scheduled for January 19, 2021. The court now grants plaintiff's motion to compel for the reasons discussed below. II. BACKGROUND[1] Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells tools and related products such as tool boxes and service equipment. Defendant carries out sales primarily through dealers who drive around in mobile dealerships stocked with Cornwell tools. Plaintiff has worked as a dealer for defendant in California since 2007. Plaintiff brings this putative wage and hour class action against defendant under the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200, alleging he and other dealers are entitled to unpaid wages and reimbursement for business expenses and illegal deductions. Plaintiff's proposed class is defined as all individuals during the class period who worked in California for defendant as a dealer or any similar title, and who were not classified as employees. On October 7, 2020, plaintiff propounded his second set of RFPs to defendant. See Markley Decl. ¶ 2. This discovery included RFP No. 51, which seeks documents “reflecting [defendant's] classification of district managers between January 1, 2015 to the present.” Id. Defendant served a response to RFP No. 51 on November 6, 2020, which consisted solely of objections. Id., Ex. A. On November 17, 2020, plaintiff sent defendant an initial meet and confer letter outlining his specific concerns with defendant's response to RFP No. 51. Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B. On December 10, 2020, the parties met and conferred telephonically. Id. During the call, defendant refused to provide a substantive response or produce documents responsive to RFP No. 51. Id. ¶ 4. Instead, defendant offered alternative methods to provide plaintiff with the discovery he sought, including providing plaintiff with the exemption from California overtime laws that apply to defendant's district managers by way of an interrogatory response or deposition testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Id.; Azada Decl. ¶ 2. Defense counsel explained that the “all-encompassing nature” of the request would require an unreasonable and unduly burdensome amount of work in carrying out the document search and collection among defendant's several custodians' electronic databases, email server, and physical files. Azada Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff indicates that while defendant took issue with the work involved in gathering responsive documents to RFP No. 51, it refused to clarify the burden at issue and made clear that it did not confirm what responsive documents existed or even attempt to look for the same. Markley Decl. ¶ 4. *2 On December 17, 2020, defendant received notice of plaintiff's desire to move forward with a discovery motion regarding RFP No. 51, along with the first draft of the instant stipulation. Azada Decl. ¶ 4. Defendant submitted its portion of the joint stipulation on December 24, 2020 despite plaintiff's offer to extend the original due date until December 28. Azada Supp. Decl. ¶ 2; Markley Supp. Decl. ¶ 2. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff's counsel emailed defense counsel seeking to clarify defendant's representation regarding its burden to obtain “one or at most a few documents” explaining how and why district managers were classified as exempt from overtime. Markley Supp. Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at 5. In response, defense counsel stated that defendant's representatives could not be consulted at that time given the time differences and upcoming holidays, and nevertheless, the request was vague, ambiguous, and imparticular, such that a search and inquiry for responsive documents was unduly burdensome and unmanageable. Id., Ex. A at 4; Azada Supp. Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. E. On December 28, 2020, plaintiff's counsel sent a further meet and confer email to defense counsel, clarifying plaintiff's position as to defendant's objections. Markley Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. Later that day, plaintiff's counsel also explained to defendant that an interrogatory response or deposition testimony are insufficient replacements for document production relating to RFP No. 51, and that parties are allowed to use federal discovery devices when and how they choose. Id., Ex. A; Azada Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. In response, defense counsel stated that defendant's representatives could not be consulted further on the matter given the holiday week. Azada Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. Additionally, defendant stated that deposition testimony on the topic would be unmanageable, and clarified that an interrogatory response is the only alternative defendant can offer in regards to RFP No. 51. Id.; Markley Supp. Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A at 1. Plaintiff responded by seeking clarification as to whether defendant needed additional time to search for responsive documents or if it was only willing to provide an interrogatory response, but defendant did not respond. Markley Supp. Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A at 1. As such, plaintiff filed the instant motion in the evening of December 28, 2020. III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asks the court to compel defendant to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 51, which requests documents explaining why district manager employees are classified as exempt from overtime. JS at 3, 16. Defendant primarily objects to the request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and argues defendant should be allowed to provide the overtime exemption classification information by way of a verified written interrogatory response. See id. at 5, 12-14; D. Supp. Mem. at 5, Azada Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. A. Legal Standards Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A party seeking class certification must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the requirements of at least one of the categories under Rule 23(b).” Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 737 F.3d 538, 542 (9th Cir. 2013). “For a named plaintiff to obtain class certification, the court must find: (1) numerosity of plaintiffs; (2) common questions of law or fact predominate; (3) the named plaintiff's claims and defenses are typical; and (4) the named plaintiff can adequately protect the interests of the class.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)). Rule 23(b) provides for three types of class actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Plaintiff here seeks to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class, which would require plaintiff to additionally show that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Courts generally recognize the need for pre-certification discovery relating to class issues. See Vinole, 571 F.3d at 942 (“Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class certification and that some discovery will be warranted.”). B. Defendant Is Required to Make a Good Faith Effort to Conduct a Search and Produce Documents Responsive to RFP No. 51 *3 RFP No. 51 seeks “all documents and ESI reflecting [defendant's] classification of district managers between January 1, 2015 to the present.” JS at 4, 16; Markley Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A. With this request, plaintiff specifically seeks documents explaining why such district manager employees are classified as exempt from overtime. See JS at 3; Markley Supp. Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at 3. Plaintiff argues documents reflecting how defendant internally views its district managers' duties and responsibilities are relevant to demonstrating whether district managers exercise control over dealers or act in the same sales capacity as dealers, which would call into question why district managers, but not dealers are considered employees. See JS at 10-11. As a further example, plaintiff contends that if district managers are considered executive exempt, it means that defendant believes district managers direct the work of two or more “other employees,” which would support plaintiff's claim that dealers are in fact employees. Id. at 11. Although defendant contends it did not concede relevance, it makes no argument that the documents sought are not relevant. See id. at 12-16. Rather, the parties primarily dispute whether the request is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome such that conducting a search for these documents would be unreasonable. See id. Defendant argues RFP No. 51 does not comply with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because it is indefinite, unlimited in scope, and does not describe with any particularity the type and nature of the documents sought. Id. at 12. Defendant also contends the request is too vague and overbroad to conduct a search since it could include non-party employees' wage statements; salary and compensations offers, negotiation communications, and agreements; work schedules; time records; commissions earning information; communications between non-party employees and defendant's human resources personnel; and attorney-client privileged communications, all of which would not have any relevance to any claims at issue in this case, and would be protected from discovery. Id. at 13-14. Contrary to defendant's argument that the request is too vague and overbroad to conduct a search, plaintiff has repeatedly clarified that he is only requesting internal documents that describe the roles and responsibilities of district managers and reflect the rationale for defendant's classification of district managers' as exempt from overtime, and thus defendant can conduct a more narrowly tailored search for such documents. See JS at 3; P. Supp. Mem. at 1, Markley Supp. Decl., Ex. A at 3, 5. Additionally, as plaintiff rightly argues, defendant's vagueness objection is countered by the fact that defendant understands the request well enough to provide a written interrogatory response describing the district managers' overtime classifications. See P. Supp. Mem. at 3; JS at 5; D. Supp. Mem. at 5, Azada Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. As such, plaintiff has provided adequate information regarding the type of documents he seeks in RFP No. 51, which has effectively narrowed the request such that defendant should be capable of making a good faith effort to search for documents reflecting the rationale for district managers' overtime exempt classifications. Defendant also argues the request potentially raises privacy concerns because it may encompass non-party district managers' private compensation information. JS at 14-15. But as just discussed, plaintiff only seeks documents regarding the district managers' overtime exempt classifications, rather than their private financial information. Nonetheless, plaintiff is amenable to defendant's redacting any salary-specific information and designating the documents under the protective order in the event that the request produces any confidential financial information. See P. Supp. Mem. at 4. These measures should sufficiently address defendant's potential privacy concerns while preserving plaintiff's access to relevant information. *4 Defendant also argues no further document production is warranted, since plaintiff already has the district managers' job descriptions and defendant offered to provide the particular overtime exemption classification of its California district managers by way of a written interrogatory response. JS at 15-16. But again, plaintiff explained that documents reflecting how defendant internally views its district managers' duties and responsibilities are relevant to his claim that dealers should be considered employees. See id. at 10-11. An interrogatory response does not necessarily provide equivalent information or evidence. Although an interrogatory response may be a more convenient way for defendant to provide the requested information – and one that may be more advantageous to defendant in this litigation – defendant does not get to dictate how plaintiff obtains discovery. Defendant's argument that RFP No. 51 will require an unreasonable and unduly burdensome amount of work is based on speculation given that defendant has not even attempted to conduct a search or contact its representatives for guidance regarding whether any responsive documents exist. See JS at 6-7, 15-16; Markley Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. E at 4. Further, because plaintiff has clarified that he is only seeking documents explaining the district managers' overtime exempt classifications, there is no reason to assume the search will be overly burdensome. While plaintiff is unable to identify the exact documents that would have that information (see D. Supp. Mem. at 4-5), that does not excuse defendant of its obligation to make a good faith effort to search for and locate responsive documents. See City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 2011 WL 13223968, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011) (“A rule that would relieve the party with superior knowledge of the obligation to search its own documents would be contrary to the intent of the discovery rules.”). IV. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the court grants plaintiff's motion to compel (docket no. 46), as described above. In particular, the court overrules defendant's objections to RFP No. 51 as clarified by plaintiff, and orders defendant to make a good faith effort to search for and produce responsive documents reflecting the rationale for district managers' overtime exempt classifications. In the event that responsive documents contain district managers' confidential financial information, defendant may redact the salary-specific information and designate such documents under the protective order. If in the future the parties require the court's assistance with a discovery matter and believe the matter may be resolved informally without a motion, they may contact the magistrate judge's courtroom deputy clerk to schedule a telephonic conference. Footnotes [1] The court draws part of the information in this section from the First Amended Complaint. See docket no. 26.