Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-59/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL HARPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-CV-0902-WBS-DMC

ORDER

 Plaintiffs Lionel Harper, Daniel Sinclair, Hassan Turner, Luis Vasquez, and Pedro 

Abascal, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action pursuant to, among 

other theories, California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code § 2698, 

et seq. Plaintiffs allege violations of California statutory law with respect to the failure to pay 

certain wages. The matter proceeds in this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ECF No. 354, and 

Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions, ECF No. 355. The parties appeared for a hearing 

before the undersigned on February 14, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Jamin Soderstrom, Esq., appeared for 

Plaintiffs. Nathan Chapman, Esq., appeared for Defendant Charter. After hearing arguments and 

making rulings from the bench, the matter was submitted for issuance of a formal order. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

 This action currently proceeds on Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. See ECF 

No. 147. On October 13, 2021, the District Judge denied leave to file a third amended complaint. 

See ECF No. 201. The parties are familiar with the factual allegations, which are not summarized 

here. 

 The procedural history for this case since October 13, 2021, has been tortured, 

involving numerous motions filed by both sides and heard by the District Judge, various stays, 

several interlocutory appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and several prior discovery motions (discussed 

below). The relevant recent procedural history is summarized in the District Judge’s December 

14, 2023, order lifting the stay of proceedings. See ECF No. 350. The District Judge’s summary 

is as follows:

 On October 10, 2021, the court stayed plaintiffs’ individual 

claims and ordered Harper, Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal’s claims to 

arbitration. [n.1: Sinclair did not sign an arbitration agreement, but the court 

also stayed his claims at his counsel’s request. (See Docket No. 202 at 24)]. 

(Docket No. 202.) Harper’s PAGA [Private Attorney General Action] claims 

were allowed to proceed in court. (Id.) A month later, the court lifted the stay 

as to Sinclair’s claims at counsel’s request. (Docket No. 223.) 

 On January 6, 2022, the court stayed Harper’s PAGA claims 

(Claim 10) pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, 

Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022). (Docket No. 261.) On March 4, 

2022, plaintiffs successfully moved for interlocutory appeal of the court’s 

order compelling their arbitrations. (Docket No. 288.) The court accordingly 

stayed the entire case. (Id.) Plaintiffs then lost their appeal. (Docket No. 

290.) 

 On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a decision in 

Viking River Cruises. The court then lifted the stay only to hear parties’ 

arguments regarding the effect of Viking River Cruises and Sinclair’s thenpending class certification motion. (Docket No. 292.) Thereafter, the court 

denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim. 

(Docket No. 300.) Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of that decision 

(Docket No. 306), and the court in response stayed the entire case again on 

September 16, 2022. (Docket No. 311.) 

 On January 12, 2023, the court continued the stay because of 

defendant’s still-pending appeal regarding Harper’s PAGA claims; Harper, 

Turner, Vazquez, and Abascal’s pending arbitrations; and Sinclair’s pending 

but stayed claims before the court. (Docket No. 323.) The January 12 stay 

has remained in effect since.

 In August and September of this year [2023], Turner and 

Vazquez’s arbitrations, respectively, concluded with final judgments entered. 

(Docket Nos. 325, 330.) Turner and Vazquez have appealed. (Docket Nos. 

326, 331.) 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

 On October 25, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s 

denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim. 

(Docket No. 342.) 

ECF No. 350, pgs. 2-3. 

The District Judge ordered, among other things, that the stay of proceedings be lifted as to all 

claims by Harper and Sinclair and that the parties submit a joint status report by January 2, 2024. 

See id. at 8.

 Ultimately, the District Judge entered a modified scheduling order on January 4, 

2024, following submission of a joint status report pursuant to the December 14, 2023, order. See

ECF No. 352. The order imposes the following schedule: 

 March 4, 2024 Deadline to file motion for class certification. 

 

 April 29, 2024 Hearing on motion for class certification (at 1:30 p.m., 

 before District Judge). 

 May 17, 2024 Deadline to disclose expert witnesses.

 June 7, 2024 Deadline to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses.

 July 12, 2024 Discovery cut-off.

 July 19, 2024 Dispositive motions filing deadline.

 November 18, 2024 Final pre-trial conference (at 1:30 p.m., before District 

 Judge). 

 January 28, 2025 Commencement of jury trial (at 9:00 a.m., before District 

 Judge). 

 Id. 

B. Prior Discovery Motions and Orders

 The current motion to compel concerns items of discovery which have been 

addressed in prior orders issued on October 21, 2020, and May 5, 2021. 

 1. October 21, 2020, Order 

 On October 21, 2020, the Court issued an order addressing Plaintiffs’ motion to 

compel and directed Defendant to serve supplemental responses to interrogatories, provide a 

contact list, and produce documents reflecting a 10% sampling. See ECF No. 87, pg. 12. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

 2. May 5, 2021, Order 

 On May 5, 2021, the Court issued another order addressing a separate dispute over 

written discovery. See ECF No. 133. After extensive briefing and expenditure of time by the 

Court, the matter was resolved by way of a stipulation, which the Court adopted. See id. at 25. In 

doing so, the Court observed: 

 Charter appears to be engaging in delaying tactics regarding, 

in particular, discovery associated with sampling of employee data which 

would support Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Following the 

hearing on the prior discovery motions, the Court ordered discovery be 

provided by November 2, 2020. Instead of providing discovery, Charter 

served supplemental responses on November 2, 2020, indicating that it will 

provide discovery at some unspecified time in the future. Nothing was 

provided by November 2, 2020. Plaintiffs could have immediately sought 

Rule 37 sanctions for Charter’s non-compliance but did not. Instead, 

Plaintiffs engaged in further meet-and-confer efforts culminating in the 

February 17, 2021, discovery agreement which reduced the sampling size 

from 10% to 2% and required discovery be provided by March 8, 2021. As 

part of that agreement, and in a further sign of good faith, Plaintiffs agreed to 

withdraw a pending motion for Rule 37 sanctions. Charter failed to produce 

documents by the agreed date and this motion followed. The Court will now 

reduce the parties’ February 17, 2021, discovery stipulation to a formal 

order.

Id. at 24-25. 

Following submission of a supporting declaration, the Court awarded Plaintiffs monetary 

sanctions in the amount of $13,333.00 on August 30, 2021. See ECF No. 168. 

II. SUMMARY OF CURRENT DISCOVERY DISPUTE

 In the currently pending motion to compel, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling 

further responses by Charter to 39 Requests for Production served by Plaintiff Harper, two 

Interrogatories served by Plaintiff Harper, and three Interrogatories served by Plaintiff Sinclair. 

See ECF No. 354. In the parties’ joint statement, the parties indicate that further meet-and-confer 

efforts have resulted in a draft stipulation resolving the parties’ disagreements concerning most of 

the discovery dispute and that the parties will submit a stipulated order to formalize their 

agreement. See ECF No. 362. Remaining at issue are the following: (1) Harper Request for 

Production Nos. 10-13, 17, 30, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 100, and 102; and (2) Sinclair Interrogatory 

Nos. 6-8. See id. at 3-5. 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

 Plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel was filed concurrently with their motion for 

discovery sanctions. According to Plaintiffs: 

 As described in their Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. 355), 

Plaintiffs eventually learned during the lengthy stay of this class and 

representative PAGA lawsuit that Charter had created and destroyed 

thousands of audio/video recordings of virtual classroom training sessions, 

training scheduling emails, training schedules and new hire kits, ride-along 

playbooks, and non-classroom training agendas, all of which are relevant to 

their claims and Charter’s defenses. These are the records most relevant and 

most responsive to Plaintiffs’ allegations dating back to September 2018, 

and to their formal discovery requests dating back to September 2019. 

Charter and its former counsel (who Charter fired in June 2021) concealed 

the existence of these records and misrepresented to 

Plaintiffs and the Court the efforts they were undertaking to identify and 

preserve all relevant and responsive records. The only reasons Plaintiffs did 

not raise these issues sooner are that (i) Plaintiffs’ counsel foolishly believed 

Charter had issued timely and appropriate litigation-hold notices and would 

not violate its discovery obligations and the Court’s orders so blatantly, and 

(ii) the lawsuit was stayed for around two years. 

 * * * 

 In December 2023, Charter’s counsel negotiated a specific discovery 

agreement that served as the basis for the current case schedule. In January 

2024, Charter immediately broke the agreement and its counsel started 

asking Plaintiffs to stipulate to new and far different discovery terms and a 

vastly extended production schedule. But when Plaintiffs’ counsel asked 

Charter’s counsel for realistic deadlines for Charter to produce records 

during a January 30, 2024 call, Charter’s counsel stated they could not offer 

a deadline because “It’s impossible to get answers and it’s impossible to get 

documents.” Plaintiffs have experienced the same frustrations for years.

ECF No. 362, pgs. 7, 8 (emphasis in original). 

 Plaintiffs contend that they have a right to obtain all responsive records before the 

deadline to move for class certification, currently March 4, 2024, and with sufficient time to 

prepare expert reports, currently due by May 17, 2024. See id. at 8. Plaintiffs ask the Court to 

order Charter to:

 1. Produce all new non-sampling training records. 

 2. Produce all records related to any meal periods or rest breaks 

that were provided to, taken by, or waived by trainees, including any 

audio/video recordings, scheduling emails, training schedules, and new hire 

kits, and non-classroom training agendas that Charter has not already 

destroyed. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 5 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6

 3. Produce all records and communications sent to or from 

Charter’s sales managers and/or training facilitators related to meal periods 

or rest breaks during training. 

 4. Produce all records showing or reflecting trainees’ hours 

worked inside and outside the office during training, including any 

audio/visual recordings, scheduling emails, 

training schedules and new hire kits, and non-classroom training agendas that 

Charter has not already destroyed. 

 5. Produce all records related to changes Charter has made to its 

new hire training programs since 2018, including any drafts, comments, and 

related communications exchanged with or among training managers, 

training facilitators, and curriculum developers. 

 6. Produce all records related to any training Charter provided to 

sales managers and/or training facilitators concerning new hire Direct Sales 

Employees, including any records showing or reflecting Charter’s policies 

and practices regarding meal periods, rest breaks, hours worked, and 

activities during ride-along training. 

 7. Produce all records related to any litigation holdcommunications and document preservation, collection, and productionrelated communications since September 2018 concerning the claims and 

defenses in this action. 

 8. Produce all records and communications related to Charter’s 

purported analysis and summary of questionnaire data. 

ECF No. 362, pgs. 8-10. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

 The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the 

parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. 

Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 

26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 

permitted:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that 

is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 

the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, 

the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 6 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7

need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery 

may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad 

discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. 

Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

 Under Rule 37, the party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the 

court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the 

responses are disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any 

objections are not justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to 

the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 75435, 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 

2008). Rule 37 also requires the moving party to meet and confer with the opposing party. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 

 The current dispute, which involves much of the same discovery addressed in the 

Court’s prior orders from October 2020 and May 2021, concerns Requests for Production of 

Documents served by Plaintiff Harper and Interrogatories served by Plaintiff Sinclair. Discussed 

with the parties at the hearing were the following: (1) Harper Request for Production Nos. 10-13, 

17, 30, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 100, and 102; and (2) Sinclair Interrogatory Nos. 6-8. See id. at 3-5. 

The parties have represented that the remaining items of discovery outlined in Plaintiffs’ notice of 

motion will be the subject of a negotiated resolution and forthcoming joint discovery stipulation. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 7 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8

 As reflected in Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, which were supplied to the Court 

prior to the hearing, the following definitions apply: 

 “YOU” and “YOUR” means Charter Communications, LLC, its 

affiliates, directors, officers, employees, representatives, and any other 

person or entity acting on Charter Communications, LLC’s behalf.

“DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” mean any and all documents 

or electronically stored information as defined by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34 and includes but is not limited to writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data 

compilations that is stored in any medium from which information can be 

obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation, into a reasonably 

usable form. For avoidance of doubt, DOCUMENT and 

DOCUMENTS include all emails, text messages, phone call records, 

voicemails, Internet posts or pages, and other electronically stored 

communications, records, and files on a computer, phone, tablet, 

or other similar device or Internet storage space (e.g., cloud or server). 

“DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEE” or “DIRECT SALES 

EMPLOYEES” means any individual who performed work for YOU in 

California at any time from November 19, 2014, to the present in a 

position that sold or attempted to sell YOUR products and services at a 

customer’s home, work, or business location instead of one of YOUR retail, 

call center, or office locations. 

 With these definitions in mind, the Court next addresses each of the 16 disputed 

discovery items which are not part of ongoing meet-and-confer efforts and forthcoming joint 

discovery stipulation. 

 1. Requests for Production of Documents 

 At issue are Plaintiff Harper’s Request for Production (RFP) Nos. 10-13, 17, 30, 

81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 100, and 102. 

 i. RFP Nos. 10-13 

 Plaintiff Harper’s requests are as follows:

RFP No. 10: Each DOCUMENT that sets forth or describes YOUR 

 policies or practices related to providing meal periods to 

 DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEES. 

RFP No. 11: Each DOCUMENT showing a meal period that YOU 

 provided to, that was taken by, or that was waived by a 

 DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEE. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 8 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

RFP No. 12: Each DOCUMENT that sets forth or describes YOUR 

policies and practices related to providing rest breaks to 

DIRECT SALES ELOYEES. This request includes but 

is not limited to providing standard rest breaks and 

cool-down rest breaks. 

RFP No. 13: Each DOCUMENT showing a rest break that YOU 

provided to, that was taken by, or that was waived by a 

DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEE.

These four requests were the subject of the Court’s October 21, 2020, order 

overruling Charter’s boilerplate objections and directing supplemental responses. In support of 

the current motion, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with Charter’s most recent supplemental 

responses dated July 9, 2020 – before the October 2020 order. Thus, it appears that Charter did 

not serve supplemental responses after the October 2020 order was issued. The responses below 

were before the Court when it issued the October 2020 order.

As to each of these four requests, the July 2020 response from Charter is the same: 

Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: To the extent this request concerns Plaintiff and other 

exempt outside salespersons Plaintiff seeks to represent, and refers to 

business records maintained by Charter, the requested documents are not

in Charter’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff and other exempt 

outside salespersons are exempt from California’s meal and rest period 

requirements.

When asked at the hearing why Charter did not supplement its responses following 

the October 2020 order, Charter’s counsel, who substituted in as counsel of record in June 2021, 

stated that he was unaware that Charter’s responses had not been supplemented as ordered. At 

the end of the hearing, Charter’s counsel informed the Court that, while Charter had 

supplemented its responses in November 2020 to some of the discovery discussed in the October 

2020 order, Charter had not supplemented its responses to RFP Nos. 10-13. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted as to RFP Nos. 10-13. The Court 

expects Charter to supplement its responses to each of these requests consistent with the October 

21, 2020, order. The Court expects that the dispute as to these requests, which has been ongoing 

for over three years, will be resolved. Charter has had more than adequate time and admonishes 

Charter’s counsel that further excuses or unfulfilled promises of forthcoming discovery will not 

be sufficient. 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 9 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10

 ii. RFP No. 17 

 Plaintiff Harper requests: 

RFP No. 17: Each time sheet or similar DOCUMENT that shows or 

 reflects the number of hours worked by DIRECT 

 SALES EMPLOYEES.

 This request was also the subject of the October 21, 2020, order. Plaintiffs have 

provided the most current supplemental response, also dated July 9, 2020: 

 Subject to and without waving the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: To the extent this request concerns Plaintiff and other 

exempt outside salespersons Plaintiff seeks to represent, and is limited to 

business records maintained by Charter, Charter is not in possession, custody 

or control of any responsive timesheets. Plaintiff and other exempt outside 

salespersons are exempt from California’s timekeeping and overtime 

requirements.

 As with RFP Nos. 10-13, Charter’s most recent supplemental response to RFP No. 

17 pre-dates the Court’s October 2020 order. Charter’s counsel conceded at the hearing that, 

while Charter served a supplemental response in compliance with the Court’s October 2020 order 

in November 2020, it did not supplement its response to RFP No. 17. The Court will again order 

Charter to serve a supplemental response to RFP No. 17 consistent with the October 21, 2020, 

order. 

 iii. RFP No. 30 

 Plaintiff Harper requests: 

RFP No. 30: Each DOCUMENT related to training YOU conduct or 

 have conducted for DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEES. 

 This request includes but is not limited to training 

 materials, attendance records, class or lecture schedules, 

 homework requirements or modules, and similar records, 

 and also includes in person, telephonic, online, or other 

 forms of training YOU provided to DIRECT SALES 

 EMPLOYEES.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 10 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11

 This request was also the subject of the October 21, 2020, order, as well as the 

May 5, 2021, order. Plaintiffs have provided the most current supplemental response from 

Charter, dated May 10, 2021, served by Charter in compliance with the prior orders: 

 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: Charter has already produced numerous pages of 

training-related documents for Account Executives during the period Harper 

was employed with Charter. With the response, Charter is producing all other 

training documents applicable to Harper within its possession, custody or 

control. Charter believes any other responsive documents no longer exist. 

 Charter’s counsel represented in the joint statement filed in connection with the 

pending motion to compel, and again at the hearing, that Charter is in the process of locating 

responsive documents which were not produced by prior counsel before withdrawal in June 2021. 

The Court will order Charter to complete this effort and serve supplemental responses and 

produce responsive documents without objection. Charter is expected to either make the 

representation that all responsive documents have been produced, that there are no responsive 

documents, or that further responsive documents are being produced. After having addressed this 

same discovery on two prior occasions, the Court expects Charter’s response to be unequivocal 

and clear. 

 iv. RFP Nos. 81 and 82 

 Plaintiff Harper’s requests are as follows:

RFP No. 81: Each DOCUMENT related to any changes YOU have 

 made to the “New Hire” training materials for the Account 

 Executive, Direct Sales Representative, and Multi-Tenant 

 Sales Representative positions since September 14, 2018. 

 For avoidance of doubt and without limitation, this request 

 seeks emails, notes, drafts, meeting invitations, recordings, 

 memoranda, or other written or electronic communications 

 and records showing, reflecting, or related to the changes 

 that YOU made to the New Hire training materials since September 14, 2018. 

RFP No. 82: Each DOCUMENT related to any training YOU have 

 provided since November 2014 to persons who have 

 conducted or facilitated “New Hire” training for Account 

 Executive, Direct Sales Representatives, and/or Multi- 

 Tenant Sales Representative positions. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 11 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

For avoidance of doubt and without limitation, this request 

seeks the materials YOU provided to facilitators (I, II, III, 

or any other level), trainers (I, II, III, or any other level), or 

similar positions. 

Neither of these requests was addressed in the Court’s prior discovery orders. As 

to both, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with Charter’s response, dated October 1, 2021. For 

both requests, Charter responded as follows:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it is served in violation 

of Plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate his claims against Defendant pursuant to 

a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement. Defendant responds to this 

Request without prejudice to its right to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his 

claims pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation dated June 23, 2021, and the 

Court’s order approving the same dated June 25, 2021. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks trade secrets 

or other confidential or proprietary research, development, commercial, or 

business information. Defendant will produce such information, if requested 

and not otherwise objectionable, subject to a protective order. 

Defendant objects to this Request as unreasonably duplicative of 

Harper’s Request for Production Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 67, and 74. 

Defendant incorporates by reference all its responses and objections to those 

requests as if set forth herein. 

In response to RFP No. 81, Charter added:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected from discovery under the attorney–client privilege, the work 

product doctrine, and/or any other privilege recognized under the law. 

Defendant will not produce such information. 

Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, and disproportional to the needs of this 

case. This Request is particularly objectionable to the extent it purports to 

require Defendant to search for, collect, and produce every scrap of 

information that might relate to changes to training materials, no matter how 

remote or immaterial its connection to any claim or defense in this action. 

This Request is also harassing and unduly burdensome given that all versions

of the relevant training materials, which reflect all changes to same during 

the relevant period, have been produced in this litigation. 

Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, 

Defendant states that it is unable to determine whether it is withholding any 

documents based on its objections because of the absurd overbreadth of this 

Request.

In response to RFP No. 82, Charter added:

Defendant objects to this Request because it is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant and immaterial to the 

subject matter of the pending litigation and disproportional to the needs of 

the case. This Request is particularly objectionable because it is overbroad as 

to subject matter in that it seeks documents related to “any training” 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 12 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13

regardless of whether the training may be pertinent to Plaintiffs’ claims or 

Defendant’s defenses. For example, training provided to the subject 

individuals on Defendant’s anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies 

has absolutely no bearing on any issue in this case. 

 Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, 

Defendant states that it has already produced all relevant documents 

responsive to this Request related to training of Account Executives, Direct 

Sales Representatives, and/or Multi-Tenant Sales Representatives. Defendant 

is withholding irrelevant documents based on its objections that are unrelated 

to Account Executive, Direct Sales Representative, and/or Multi-Tenant 

Sales Representative training. 

 The Court finds that, as currently framed, RFP Nos. 81 and 82 are overbroad 

because they present Charter with the untenable demand of seeking out every scrap of paper that 

makes reference to a potentially responsive document. Nonetheless, after discussion with counsel 

at the hearing, it is clear that counsel have reached a mutual understanding of what is being 

requested. In the spirit of cooperation the Court expects, Charter’s counsel stated that was no 

need for Plaintiffs to re-serve narrower versions of RFP Nos. 81 and 82. 

 Based on these representations, the Court will grant the motion to compel as to 

RFP Nos. 81 and 82. Charter is expected to continue and complete its search for responsive 

documents and to produce such documents or provide a clear unequivocal statement that there are 

no responsive documents. This order will be without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to seek 

further detail by way of tailored discovery requests. 

 v. RFP Nos. 84 and 86 

 Plaintiffs Harper’s requests are as follows: 

RFP No. 84: Each DOCUMENT related to rest or meal breaks during 

 “New Hire” training that YOU have sent to or received 

 from persons who have conducted or facilitated “New 

 Hire” training for the Account Executive, Direct Sales 

 Representative, and Multi-Tenant Sales Representative 

 positions. 

 For avoidance of doubt and without limitation, this request 

 seeks emails, text messages, memoranda, or other written 

 or electronic communications and recordings sent to, 

 received from, or concerning any rest or meal breaks 

 facilitators and trainers are asked or expected to provide to 

 participants in New Hire training Week 1 and/or Week 2. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 13 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

RFP No. 86: Each DOCUMENT related to rest or meal breaks during 

“New Hire” training that YOU have sent to or received 

from persons who supervise or manage the participants in 

the “New Hire” training for the Account Executive, Direct 

Sales Representative, and Multi-Tenant Sales 

Representative positions. 

For avoidance of doubt and without limitation, this request 

seeks emails, text messages, memoranda, or other written 

and electronic communications and recordings sent to, 

received from, or concerning the daily or weekly schedules 

for New Hire training Week 1 and/or Week 2 participants, 

including but not limited to ride-along, shadowing, or field 

days.

Neither of these requests was addressed in the Court’s prior discovery orders. As 

to both, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with Charter’s response, dated October 1, 2021. For 

both requests, Charter responded as follows:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it is served in violation 

of Plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate his claims against Defendant pursuant to 

a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement. Defendant responds to this 

Request without prejudice to its right to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his 

claims pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation dated June 23, 2021, and the 

Court’s order approving the same dated June 25, 2021.

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected from discovery under the attorney–client privilege, the work 

product doctrine, and/or any other privilege recognized under the law. 

Defendant will not produce such information.

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks trade secrets 

or other confidential or proprietary research, development, commercial, or 

business information. Defendant will produce such information, if requested 

and not otherwise objectionable, subject to a protective order.

Defendant objects to this Request as unreasonably duplicative of 

Harper’s Request for Production Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 67, and 74. 

Defendant incorporates by reference all its responses and objections to those 

requests as if set forth herein.

In response to RFP No. 82, Charter added:

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is irrelevant and 

immaterial to the subject matter of the pending litigation, and is 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. This Request is particularly 

objectionable because it lacks a temporal limitation. This Request is also 

objectionable to the extent it seeks documents related to meal breaks and rest 

breaks that are not associated with training of Account Executives, Direct 

Sales Representatives, and/or Multi-Tenant Sales Representatives.

Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, 

Defendant states that it has already produced all documents responsive to this 

Request. Defendant is not withholding any documents responsive to this 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 14 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15

Request based on its objections. 

In response to RFP No. 86, Charter added: 

 Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is irrelevant and 

immaterial to the subject matter of the pending litigation, and is 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. This Request is particularly 

objectionable because it lacks a temporal limitation. This Request is also 

objectionable because it purports to require Defendant to search for, collect, 

review, and produce every scrap of information sent to or received from 

every supervisor or manager regarding every meal or rest break taken by 

every putative class member during new hire training for an infinite period of 

time. 

 Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, 

Defendant states that it has already produced relevant documents reflecting 

meal and rest breaks provided to putative class members after a reasonable 

diligent search. Defendant is not aware of whether it is withholding any other 

documents based on its objections because of the absurd overbreadth of this 

Request.

 Before discussion with counsel at the hearing, the Court was troubled by the 

breadth of the categories of Charter employees potentially encompassed by the requests. 

Counsel, however, both confirmed their mutual understanding of these requests as seeking 

information related just to the three specific categories of employees mentioned – Account 

Executive, Direct Sales Representative, Direct Sales Representative, and Multi-Tenant Sales 

Representative. Counsel further confirmed their mutual understanding of the definitions of these 

three positions and the employees encompassed. Further demonstrating the expected level of 

civility and cooperation, counsel agreed that RFP Nos. 84 and 86 substantially overlap and that 

Charter’s counsel would work with Plaintiffs’ counsel on creating search parameters which will 

allow Charter to identify and produce documents responsive to both requests. The Court will so 

order and grant Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to RFP Nos. 84 and 86. 

 vi. RFP No. 87 

 Plaintiff Harper requests: 

RFP No. 87: Each DOCUMENT related to YOU tracking participant 

 attendance in “New Hire” training for the Account 

 Executive, Direct Sales Representative, and Multi-Tenant 

 Sales Representative positions. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 15 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

For avoidance of doubt and without limitation, this request 

seeks the actual attendance records and any emails, text 

messages, memoranda, or other written or electronic 

communications and recordings related to participant 

attendance in New Hire training Week 1 and/or Week 2.

This request has not been the subject of any prior order. Plaintiffs have provided 

Charter’s October 1, 2021, response as follows:

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it is served in violation 

of Plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate his claims against Defendant pursuant to 

a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement. Defendant responds to this 

Request without prejudice to its right to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his 

claims pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation dated June 23, 2021, and the 

Court’s order approving the same dated June 25, 2021. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected from discovery under the attorney–client privilege, the work 

product doctrine, and/or any other privilege recognized under the law. 

Defendant will not produce such information. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks trade secrets 

or other confidential or proprietary research, development, commercial, or 

business information. Defendant will produce such information, if requested 

and not otherwise objectionable, subject to a protective order. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is irrelevant and 

immaterial to the subject matter of the pending litigation, and is 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. This Request is particularly 

objectionable because it lacks a temporal limitation. This Request is also 

objectionable because Defendant has already produced training transcripts 

for a 2% sample of the class. 

Defendant objects to this Request as unreasonably duplicative of 

Harper’s Request for Production Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 67, and 74. 

Defendant incorporates by reference all its responses and objections to those 

requests as if set forth herein. 

Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, 

Defendant states that it has already produced all documents responsive to this 

Request falling within the 2% sampling to which the parties agreed. 

Defendant is not withholding any documents from within that sample based 

on its objections.

At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that the information sought in RFP 

No. 87 is already embraced in the more comprehensive RFP No. 30. As discussed above, the 

Court expects an appropriate supplemental response to RFP No. 30. The Court will sustain 

Charter’s objection that RFP No. 87 is duplicative and deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to 

this request. This ruling, however, will be without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to serve further 

requests should production of documents responsive to RFP No. 30 be inadequate. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 16 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

17

 vii. RFP No. 100 

 Plaintiff Harper requests: 

RFP No. 100: All DOCUMENTS related to any communication YOU 

 had on or after September 14, 2018, with any of YOUR 

 current or former employees, officers, agents, or 

 representatives related to the preservation or collection of 

 documents or electronically stored information potentially 

 related to any of the allegations and claims in the 

 September 14, 2018, PAGA Notice and/or this lawsuit. 

 For avoidance of doubt and without limitation, this request 

 seeks all litigation hold-related communications and 

 records, and all document collection-related 

 communications and records in Charter’s possession, 

 custody, or control. Excluded from this request are any 

 communication that was sent directly to Plaintiffs or their 

 counsel. 

 This request has not been the subject of any prior order. Plaintiffs have provided 

Charter’s January 24, 2024, response as follows: 

 Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected from discovery under the attorney–client privilege, the work 

product doctrine, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and/or any other 

privilege recognized under the law. Defendant will not produce such 

information. 

 Defendant objects to this Request as overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, irrelevant, immaterial, harassing, and disproportional to the 

needs of this case. This Request is particularly objectionable to the extent it 

seeks every communication with Charter employees, internally or otherwise, 

about anything that might potentially be “related” to the collection and 

preservation of documents and ESI, no matter how remote or immaterial its 

connection to the claims, defenses and allegations in this litigation. 

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks trade secrets 

or other confidential or proprietary research, development, commercial, or 

business information. 

 Defendant is withholding documents based upon its objections, 

including documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

privilege and work product doctrine, all of which were created after the 

inception of this litigation.

 Asked at the hearing about the absence of privilege logs supporting Charter’s 

objections, counsel informed the Court that the parties’ practice by agreement in this case was not 

to require privilege logs as to documents created after the case was filed. Counsel also confirmed 

that this request for production relates to Charter’s litigation-hold materials. Charter’s counsel 

stated that Charter could produce a privilege log of litigation-hold materials. The Court will so 

order and further direct that the privilege log and related documents be provided to the Court for 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 17 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

18

in camera review. Should the documents to be submitted for in camera review encompass a large 

volume of documents (thousands of pages or more), Charter’s counsel is directed to contact the 

Court’s chambers for further direction. On the assumption that a large volume of documents will 

not be involved, the Court will set a date for submission of documents for in camera review. 

Following submission, the Court will rule on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to RFP No. 100. 

 viii. RFP No. 102 

 Plaintiff Harper requests: 

RFP No. 102: All DOCUMENTS related to YOUR review of the 

 questionnaire responses referred to in the Carr Declaration 

 dated March 28, 2022, including YOUR communications 

 regarding the responses, analysis of each of the responses, 

 and preparation of a related spreadsheet. 

 For avoidance of doubt and without, this request seeks all 

 documents (including all drafts and emails) related to 

 “Charter’s analysis” of the questionnaire responses, 

 including its interpretation and categorization of each of the 

 responses, its methodology in reviewing the responses and 

 determining percentages, and its interpretations and 

 conclusions. See Dkts. 299, 299-1, 299-2, and 299-3. 

 This request has not been the subject of any prior order. Plaintiffs have provided 

Charter’s January 24, 2024, response as follows: 

 Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected from discovery under the attorney–client privilege, the work 

product doctrine, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and/or any other 

privilege recognized under the law. This Request is particularly objectionable 

because it seeks attorney–client privileged communications between 

Defendant and its attorneys, and it seeks privileged attorney work product in 

the form of drafts and emails between Defendant’s attorneys. Defendant will 

not produce such information. 

 Defendant is withholding documents protected from disclosure by the 

attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, all of which were 

created after the inception of this litigation.

 At the hearing, Charter’s counsel represented that the only responsive document is 

prior counsel’s spreadsheet, a document already in the possession of Plaintiff. If that is the case, 

Charter will be required to so state unequivocally and without objection in a supplemental 

response. Charter will be held to this representation. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted 

as to RFP No. 102. 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 18 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

19

 2. Interrogatories

 At issue are Plaintiff Sinclair’s Interrogatory (Rog.) Nos. 6-8. Plaintiff Sinclair 

asks the following questions: 

Rog. No. 6 Describe the training program(s) for each position YOU 

 identified in connection with Interrogatory 4. For purposes 

 of this interrogatory, “Describe” means to identify who 

 provided the training; what the training involved; whether 

 the training was mandatory or voluntary; when training 

 occurred and for how long; and where the training 

 occurred.

Rog. No. 7 If YOU contend that any part of the training program(s) 

 described in connection with Interrogatory 6 involved both 

 “outside” and “sales” activities, explain the factual and 

 legal basis for YOUR contention. 

Rog. No. 8 If YOU contend that any part of the training program(s) 

 described in connection with Interrogatory 6 involved both 

 “outside” and “sales” activities, explain the factual and 

 legal basis for YOUR contention. 

 These interrogatories were addressed in the Court’s October 21, 2020, order. 

Plaintiffs have provided Charter’s November 2, 2020, supplemental responses in which, as to 

each interrogatory, Charter stated that it would produce sampling data pursuant to the October 

2020 order. 

 At the hearing, the parties agreed that the information sought by these 

interrogatories is subsumed in the information sought by way of the RFPs discussed above. 

Based on this representation, and the Court’s orders regarding RFPs, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

will be denied as to Interrogatories 6-8. 

B. Motion for Discovery Sanctions

 Plaintiffs contend that Charter has concealed and destroyed thousands of records 

that are relevant to their misclassification-based claims (Counts 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10) and that 

Charter has violated prior discovery orders and made misrepresentations to avoid or delay 

discovery. See ECF No. 355, pg. 2. Plaintiffs seek primarily a default judgment sanction on 

these claims. See id. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek less severe sanctions under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 37 as follows: (1) nine separate issue sanctions in which certain matters are 

deemed established; (2) evidence preclusion sanctions; (3) mandatory adverse inference 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 19 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

20

sanctions; and (4) monetary sanctions. 

 The Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ requests to seal documents in connection with 

the motion for discovery sanctions. See ECF Nos. 356 and 368. Plaintiffs seek to have Exhibit 5 

to the Soderstrom declaration at ECF No. 355-2 and Exhibit 2 to the Soderstrom declaration at 

ECF No. 367-1 filed under seal. See ECF Nos. 356 and 368. These declarations were filed in 

support of Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions. Redacted versions of both exhibits have 

been filed on the public docket and unredacted versions have been submitted to the Court. 

According to Plaintiffs, these exhibits should be ordered filed under seal because both were 

designated as confidential by Charter pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. See id. 

 Plaintiffs’ requests will be denied. A confidentiality agreement between the 

parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents. See ECF No. 364 

(District Judge order). Beyond citing to the protective order, Plaintiffs’ have not demonstrated a 

need to seal these documents. The public docket contains only redacted versions of these 

documents. Thus, the documents are not available to the public even in the absence of a sealing 

order. 

 Turning to the substance of Plaintiffs’ motion, Plaintiffs contend that discovery 

sanctions under Rule 37 are warranted “based on Charter’s failures to comply with the discovery 

rules, violations of the Court’s orders and parties’ agreements, and destruction of thousands of 

relevant and responsive documents and electronically stored information (collectively, 

‘records’).” ECF No. 355, pg. 11. According to Plaintiffs: 

Charter never raised any preservation issues with Plaintiffs or the 

Court during years of discovery and motion practice. Instead, Charter 

repeatedly represented to Plaintiffs and the Court that it had complied with 

all of its discovery obligations and produced “all” relevant and responsive 

records related to Direct Sales Employees’ meal periods, rest breaks, hours 

worked, and training. [footnote 1 defining the term “Direct Sales Employees” 

omitted]. Whenever Plaintiffs expressed skepticism and sought more 

information about Charter’s training-related records, Charter denied any 

misconduct and accused Plaintiffs of speculation, fishing expeditions, and 

harassment. Plaintiffs’ skepticism was justified.

 In 2023, Plaintiffs learned that Charter concealed and destroyed five 

categories of relevant and responsive records: (1) audio/video recordings of 

the virtual classroom training sessions that Charter conducts for new hire 

Direct Sales Employees; (2) scheduling emails that Charter’s 

training facilitators send to the participants in its virtual classroom training 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 20 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

21

sessions; (3) new hire training schedules and kits that Charter gives to Direct 

Sales Employees for their training weeks; (4) “playbooks” that Charter uses 

for the ride-along portion of new hire training; and (5) training agendas that 

Charter uses for the non-classroom portion of new hire training. The records 

that Charter concealed and destroyed were common, objective evidence that 

showed what actually happens during new hire Direct Sales Employees’ 

training weeks. The destroyed records would have proved Plaintiffs’ 

misclassification-based claims and defeated Charter’s class certification and 

merits defenses.

Id. 

 Plaintiffs claim the following violation of Charter’s duty to preserve records: (1) 

Charter destroyed thousands of audio/video recordings of training sessions: (2) Charter destroyed 

thousands of standardized scheduling emails; (3) Charter destroyed thousands of new-hire 

training schedules; (4) Charter destroyed multiple playbooks used for ride-along training; and (5) 

Charter destroyed hundreds of training agendas. See ECF No. 355, pgs. 15-20. 

 With respect to training sessions, Plaintiffs state that Charter’s Director of 

Training and Development, Lynda Arnold, testified in June 2023 that, since 2014, Charter has 

required its training facilitators to collect all of Charter’s training-related records, including 

audio/visual records, and to provide those record to Charter’s counsel. See id. at 15. According 

to Plaintiffs, these records are relevant to Harper’s Request for Production Nos. 10-13, 17, and 

30, and Sinclair’s Interrogatory Nos. 6-8. See id. at 15-16. Plaintiffs maintain that, despite their 

relevance to these requests for production, documents created since 2018 have not been produced: 

 Charter has not produced any of the audio/video recordings that were 

created since 2018. Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 5. Charter has never disputed that the 

recordings were destroyed, and it has never stated that any of them can be 

recovered or replaced. Id. Plaintiffs estimate that Charter has destroyed over 

2,000 recordings since 2018. Id.

ECF No. 355, pg. 16. 

Plaintiffs conclude that, because Charter required collection of these materials since 2014, and no 

such records since 2018 have been produced, Charter must have destroyed them. 

 As to scheduling emails, Plaintiffs state that Ms. Arnold testified in March 2023 

that classroom training sessions were not permitted to extend beyond four hours without 

permission, and that she was not aware of ever providing permissions for extended training 

sessions. See id. at 16. Plaintiffs maintain that, contradicting this testimony, Plaintiffs are in 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 21 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

22

possession of various emails from June 2018 showing a training facilitator scheduling classroom 

training for as many as 5.5 hours. See id. Ms. Arnold testified that she had never seen those 

emails. See id. Then, in June 2023, Ms. Arnold testified that facilitators used template emails, 

that she was familiar with these templates and approved them, and that facilitators were 

responsible for sending these emails. See id. When asked about scheduling emails from 

December 2019 showing that facilitators were telling trainees that classroom training would last 

five or more hours on some days, Ms. Arnold stated that she was not aware of those emails. See

id. Plaintiffs contend the scheduling emails are responsive to Harper’s Request for Production 

Nos. 17 and 30. Plaintiffs maintain that, as with the records concerning training sessions, Charter 

has not produced any of the scheduling emails sent by its facilitators since 2019 even though they 

are responsive to discovery requests. See id. at 17. Again, Plaintiffs conclude that these emails 

must have been destroyed. See id. 

 Regarding training schedules, Plaintiffs state that Director of Residential 

Connectivity Raul Salcedo testified in March 2023 that some of the training schedule content had 

changed since 2018 and that “the one that we have now is electronically provided” rather than 

printed out. See id. at 17. Plaintiffs maintain that the training schedules are responsive to Harper 

Request for Production Nos. 10-13, 17, and 30. See id. at 18. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs have never 

received any of the new training schedules. See id. Again, Plaintiffs conclude that, based on 

non-receipt, Charter must have destroyed these records. See id. 

 As to playbooks, Plaintiffs state that Ms. Arnold testified in March 2023 that she 

assumed a corporate curriculum manager was responsible for playbooks for training ride-alongs. 

See id. at 18-19. Also in March 2023, Mr. Salcedo testified that Charter gives new hires ridealong playbooks in additional classroom training workbooks. See id. at 19. Mr. Salcedo later 

testified in June 2023 that playbooks are corporate documents. See id. According to Plaintiffs, 

the playbooks are responsive to Harper’s Request for Production No. 30, and Sinclair 

Interrogatory Nos. 6-8. See id. Plaintiffs state that the only ride-along playbook they have ever 

received is the October 2019 version. See id. Again, Plaintiffs assume that, because it has not 

received other playbooks despite testimony from Ms. Arnold and Mr. Salcedo that they exist, 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 22 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

23

Charter must have destroyed them. See id. 

 Finally, Plaintiffs claims that Charter destroyed materials related to training 

agendas. Plaintiffs state that Mr. Salcedo testified in June 2023 that Charter’s sales leadership 

provided “agendas” to new hire trainees for their non-classroom training. See id. Plaintiffs state 

the training agendas are responsive to Harper’s Request for Production Nos. 17 and 30 but that 

Charter has never produced any training agendas. See id. at 20. As with the other categories of 

supposedly destroyed evidence, Plaintiffs conclude that documents not produced must have been 

destroyed. See id. 

 In additional to the assertions above concerning spoliation of evidence, Plaintiff 

assert: (1) Charter served non-compliant initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26; (2) Charter violated the Court’s February 26, 2020, October 21, 2020, and May 5, 2021, 

orders; (3) Charter violated various orders concerning production of sampling data; and (4) 

Charter has made numerous misrepresentations and omissions to avoid or delay discovery. 

 Regarding initial disclosures, Plaintiffs contend that Charter’s initial Rule 26 

disclosures from November 2019 listed only one employee whom Charter knew possessed 

relevant knowledge about the case. See id. at 20. Plaintiffs also state that Charter did not provide 

documents it knew at the time were relevant, instead producing only “generic categories of 

relevant documents.” Id. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs maintain that Charter must have known of other 

potential witnesses because it obtained their declarations. See id. at n.5. Plaintiffs accuse Charter 

of using its inadequate Rule 26 disclosures to conceal the identities of employees who had 

relevant knowledge about meal periods, rest breaks, hours worked, and training. See id. at 21. 

Notably, Charter has never supplemented its initial Rule 26 disclosures. See id. 

 As to the Court’s February 26, 2020, order denying Charter’s motion to strike 

PAGA claims, Plaintiffs contend:

 Charter’s gamesmanship continued in 2020. On February 26, 2020, 

the Court denied Charter’s motion to strike the class and representative 

PAGA claims and instructed the parties to “proceed through discovery and 

the class certification process” because “manageability issues are better 

addressed after discovery has concluded and class certification is 

determined.” Dkt. 56 at 12. 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 23 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

24

 Charter immediately violated the order. Instead of proceeding 

through class and representative PAGA discovery, Charter refused to engage 

in any class or representative PAGA discovery and forced Plaintiffs to file 

multiple motions to compel. Dkt. 47; Dkt. 57; Dkt. 62; Dkt. 76; Dkt. 78; Dkt. 

84. 

ECF No. 355, pg. 21. 

 Next, with respect to the Court’s October 21, 2020, order, Plaintiffs contend that 

Charter violated the October 21, 2020, order. See ECF No. 355, pgs. 21-22. According to 

Plaintiffs:

Charter immediately violated the order. It did not serve new 

supplemental responses to RFPs 10–13 or 17. Dkt. 118–2 at 12–30 (Nov. 2, 

2020, RFP Supp. Responses). Its supplemental response to RFP 30 stated 

that future productions would be “[s]ubject to and without waiving the 

foregoing objections,” all of which had been overruled. Id. at 27. Instead of 

responding substantively to Interrogatories 6–8, it agreed to “produce a 10% 

sampling of documents related to training Charter conducts or has conducted 

for [Direct Sales Employees].” Dkt. 118–2 at 53–56 (Nov. 2, 2020, Rog. 

Supp. Responses). But it did not reveal that it was withholding any 

responsive records or limiting its search for responsive records. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(4) (“an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must 

be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond”). It did not produce 

any records on a rolling basis, and it did not produce any records responsive 

to RFPs 10–13 or 17. Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 12. It finally produced some nonsampling records (but no sampling records) on the December 10, 2020, 

deadline, and delayed producing additional responsive records for several 

more months. Id.

ECF No. 355, pg. 22. 

 As to the Court’s May 5, 2021, order, Plaintiffs state that some records were 

produced in May and September 2021 pursuant to this order. See ECF No. 355, pg. 23. Plaintiffs 

add: 

 Charter produced more training-related records in May and 

September 2021, including records that were dated from 2020 and earlier, 

thereby proving that its representations about having already produced “all” 

responsive records were false. Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 13. Charter also continued 

concealing and destroying audio/video recordings, scheduling emails, 

training schedules, ride-along playbooks, and training agendas in violation of 

both the October 21, 2020, order and the May 5, 2021 order. 

ECF No. 355, pg. 23. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 24 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

25

 Next, as to production of sampling data, Plaintiffs contend Charter has violated 

numerous orders directing charter to provide records representing a sampling of documents in 

various categories, including offer letters, training transcripts, wage statements, commission 

statements, commission plan acknowledgement data, signed plan documents, arbitration-related 

records, disposition reports, “knock reports,” and leads lists. See ECF No. 355, pgs. 23-24 (citing 

ECF Nos. 112, 133, and 307-1). By way of reference, ECF No. 112 is the parties’ February 17, 

2021, stipulation which was adopted in the May 5, 2021, order; ECF No. 133 is the May 5, 2021, 

order; and ECF No. 307-1 is Charter’s counsel’s September 15, 2022, declaration in support of 

Charter’s ex parte application to extend discovery production deadlines. 

 A review of the docket reflects numerous extensions of the deadline to produce 

sampling data. The most recent extension was approved by the District Judge on September 16, 

2022. See ECF No. 309. The District Judge extended the deadline to comply with the Court’s 

orders requiring Charter to complete its production of additional sampling documents and 

electronically stored information “until the earlier of: (1) 14 days after the Court grants plaintiff 

Sinclair’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification, if at all; (2) 14 days after the Court denies 

Charter’s forthcoming motion to stay the PAGA claim pending appeal, if at all; or (3) 14 days 

after the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate affirming this Court’s order denying Charter’s Motion 

to Compel Arbitration of Harper’s PAGA claim and dismiss count ten, if at all.” Id. 

 Also on September 16, 2022, the District Judge issued a separate order reimposing 

a stay of all proceedings pending resolution of Charter’s interlocutory appeal from the order 

denying Charter’s motion to compel arbitration. See ECF No. 311. On October 3, 2023, the 

Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition affirming the District Judge’s denial of Charter’s 

motion to compel arbitration. See ECF No. 333. The mandate was issued on this Court’s docket 

on October 25, 2023. See ECF No. 342. On December 14, 2023, the District Judge lifted the 

stay, triggering the 14-day deadline for completion of production of sampling data. See ECF No. 

350. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 25 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

26

 Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs argue in the current motion for discovery 

sanctions that Charter has violated the November 15, 2021, order. See ECF No. 355, pg. 24. 

According to Plaintiffs: 

 On November 15, 2021, the Court again ordered Charter to “provide 

the data for the 10% sample on a rolling basis as soon as it becomes 

available,” and to “complete its production” by January 14, 2022. Dkt. 213 at 

3 (emphasis added). Charter also violated this order by failing to produce any 

records on a rolling basis even though it had compiled the commission plan 

acknowledgement data by November 9, 2021, the offer letters by November 

19, 2021, the training transcripts by November 22, 2021, and the wage 

statements by December 7, 2021 (probably earlier). Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 14, 

Ex. 11. For weeks, Charter simply sat on thousands of records that were 

available to be produced. Id.

ECF No. 355, pg. 24. 

 Plaintiffs also contend Charter has violated the September 16, 2022, order: 

 On December 28, 2023, Charter violated yet another court order 

concerning the additional 10% sampling. Dkt. 309. On the deadline, it 

produced the offer letters, training transcripts, wage statements, and some of 

the commission statements/data that it had collected and then refused to 

produce two years earlier. Id. ¶ 15. But it failed to produce the additional 

sampling of commission plan acknowledgment data, physically signed 

commission plan documents and receipts, arbitration-related records and 

data, disposition reports, knock reports, and leads lists. Id. Charter did not 

seek an extension of the deadline before failing to include those records in its 

production. Id. Almost a month later during the week of January 22, 2024, 

Charter finally produced the additional sampling of commission plan 

acknowledgment data, disposition reports, knock reports, and leads lists it 

had collected in 2021. Id.

ECF No. 355, pg. 24.

 Finally, Plaintiffs contend Charter’s counsel have made numerous 

misrepresentations and omissions to delay and avoid discovery. See id. at 24-25. First, Plaintiffs 

complain about misrepresentations allegedly made by Charter’s former counsel: 

 Early in discovery, Charter misrepresented that the only responsive 

training-related records were training transcripts; training modules; 

classroom training workbooks, guidebooks, and PowerPoint presentations; 

and customer leads lists and disposition reports. Id. ¶ 16. Charter also 

misrepresented that the only responsive records related to Direct Sales 

Employees’ meal periods, rest breaks, and hours worked were the training 

workbooks, several PowerPoint slides, and wage statements that 

automatically recorded the equivalent of 40 hours of work per week. Id. Each 

time Plaintiffs pressed for more information about the existence of other 

potentially relevant and responsive records, Charter misrepresented that it 

had performed diligent searches, collected and produced “all” responsive 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 26 of 29
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

27

records, and stated that no other responsive records existed. See, e.g., id. ¶ 

17, Ex. 12. 

ECF No. 355, pgs. 24-25. 

 Plaintiffs also complain of continuing misrepresentations in 2024: 

 Charter’s misrepresentations and delays have continued in 2024. 

After the Court lifted the stay, Charter agreed to (1) produce an updated class 

list by January 22; (2) produce supplemental sampling records starting on 

January 22 to be completed by February 12; (3) produce supplemental nonsampling records starting on January 22 to be completed by February 12; (4) 

produce certain class member declarant records starting on January 22 to be 

completed by February 12; (5) respond to the preservation letter by January 

22; and (6) notify Plaintiffs in writing by January 15 if it could not meet any 

of these deadlines. Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 18, Ex. 13. This agreement served as 

the basis for the proposed case schedule, which the Court has adopted. Dkt. 

351; Dkt. 352. 

Charter immediately violated its agreement. It did not notify Plaintiffs 

by January 15 that it could not meet the agreed deadlines. Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 

18. It did not produce an updated class list or updated position histories by 

January 22. Id. It did not start a rolling production of several categories of 

documents by January 22. Id. And it did not respond to Plaintiffs’ 

preservation letter by January 22. Id. Even with court orders and detailed 

agreements, Plaintiffs cannot trust Charter to make truthful and accurate 

representations, or to comply with its basic discovery obligations and agreed 

deadlines.

ECF No. 355, pg. 25. 

 For a remedy, Plaintiffs seek various relief in the alternative as follows: (1) default 

judgment on its misclassification-based claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b); (2) 

issue sanctions under Rule 37(b); (3) preclusion sanctions under Rule 37(b); (4) mandatory 

adverse inference sanctions under Rule 37(b); (5) monetary sanctions under Rule 37(b); (6) 

evidence preclusion sanctions under Rule 37(c); and (7) sanctions under Rule 37(e) for spoliation 

of evidence. See ECF No. 355, pgs. 25-40. 

 The Court finds that, at this point, Plaintiffs have not made a threshold showing of 

spoliation of evidence or other discovery abuses warranting the remedies sought. The impetus for 

Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions appears to be non-receipt of discovery which has been 

ordered by the Court and promised by Charter’s counsel on numerous occasions, but which has 

not been forthcoming. This is the subject of the companion motion to compel, discussed above, 

for which Plaintiff has, in large part, been granted relief. While the Court is sympathetic to 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 27 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

Plaintiffs’ frustration at obtaining discovery, the Court is not prepared at this time to recommend 

the scope of severe sanctions requested, subject to Charter’s expected compliance with this order 

requiring production of documents. 

The Court will therefore reserve any ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery 

sanctions until such time as Charter has complied with this order and Plaintiffs have received and 

reviewed documents produced. Should Plaintiffs continue to feel the need to seek discovery 

sanctions following completion of this process, Plaintiffs will be required to file supplemental 

briefing setting forth a more complete showing of spoliation and/or discovery misconduct, and 

Charter will be required to provide a detailed point-by-point response. To this end, and as 

emphasized above, the Court expects Charter to be extremely clear in the supplemental responses 

ordered here. Charter is cautioned that sloppy or incomplete responses will re-open the door for 

Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. For now, the door is closed pending Charter’s supplemental 

responses. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ECF No. 354, is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part as explained below:

a. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED as to Harper RFP Nos. 

10-13, 17, 30, 81, 82, 84, 86, and 102.

b. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED as to Harper RFP No. 87.

c. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED as to Sinclair Rog. Nos. 

6-8.

2. On or before close of business on February 23, 2024, Charter shall serve on 

Plaintiff a privilege log relating to documents responsive to Harper RFP No. 100. In addition, 

Charter is to submit to the Court for in camera review both the privilege log and the responsive 

documents. On completion of the in camera review, the Court will issue a further ruling as to the 

pending Motion to Compel as to Harper RFP No. 100.

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 28 of 29
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

3. On or before close of business on March 20, 2024, Charter shall serve 

supplemental responses to Harper RFP Nos. 10-13, 17, 30, 81, 82, 84, 86, and 102, and produce 

documents responsive thereto.

4. Plaintiffs’ requests to seal documents, ECF Nos. 356 and 368, are 

DENIED.

5. This matter is set for a status conference before the undersigned on April 

11, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom to address the status of pending discovery. 

Dated: February 16, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 374 Filed 02/20/24 Page 29 of 29