Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

SABAS ARREDONDO et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELANO FARMS CO., et al.,

Defendants.

1:09-cv-01247 MJS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. No. 378)

Plaintiffs seek a protective order to prevent Defendants from taking depositions of 

thirty-eight (38) absent class members who reside outside of the Delano, California area. 

In response, Defendants propose starting with depositions of 16 absent class members 

clustered around California and Las Vegas, Nevada in an effort to determine if there is 

evidence of bias based on geographic location of absent class members. Plaintiffs argue 

that the out of range depositions would not assist Defendants because the randomness 

of their pilot study has already been compromised, and that there is not sufficient 

evidence to show bias on behalf of absent class members in the Delano, California area.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This factual and procedural history relates only to the present discovery issue.

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 7
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

On February 21, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' 

motion for class decertification. (ECF No. 310.) Thereafter, the parties filed a scheduling 

report reflecting the parties’ disagreement on a method of conducting discovery relating 

to the liability phase of trial. (ECF No. 326.) On August 19, 2014, the Court ordered the 

parties to proceed with discovery in accordance with applicable law and rules but 

otherwise as they saw fit and necessary to pursue their respective sampling proposals.

(ECF No. 330.) 

Plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent Defendants from deposing 196 

absent class members as a part of a pilot study. (ECF No. 333.) On October 10, 2014, 

the Court denied the motion finding that that "the imposition which will result from 

Defendants' pilot study depositions, though not insignificant, is outweighed by the 

potential benefits to the process." (ECF No. 342.)

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this second motion for a protective order to 

discontinue Defendants efforts to conduct depositions of absent class members outside 

the geographical area.1 (ECF No. 378.) Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on 

July 24, 2015 and Plaintiffs filed a reply on July 31, 2015. (ECF Nos. 384, 390.) The 

Court took the matter under submission without oral argument on August 4, 2015. 

Accordingly, the matter stands ready for adjudication. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals favor discovery to assist in the underlying goals of litigation. Pursuant to the 

Federal Rules, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party's claim or defense" and this "[r]elevant information need not be 

admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Ninth Circuit has explained that it

 

1

The geographical area in question is not stated. However, based on the fact that depositions 

previously took place in Delano and Los Angeles County, the Court will assume that any depositions 

beyond the San Joaquin Valley and the Greater Los Angeles area are “outside the geographical area.”

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 7
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

favors a broad scope of discovery. "[W]ide access to relevant facts serves the integrity 

and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for truth." Epstein v. MCA, 

Inc., 54 F.3d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995); Dysthe v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 273 F.R.D. 

625, 628 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

But the right to access information is not absolute and the court must limit the 

frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if: "(i) the discovery sought is 

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that 

is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery 

has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the 

needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the 

issues." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c). "The party opposing disclosure has the burden of 

proving 'good cause,' which requires a showing 'that specific prejudice or harm will result' 

if the protective order is not granted." In re Catholic Archbishop of Portland Oregon, 661 

F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)).

III. ANALYSIS

On October 10, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request to prevent Defendants 

from taking some 200 depositions in furtherance of their proposed pilot study. While 

acknowledging the burden of such a large number of depositions, the Court found that 

Defendants had made a persuasive case that the discovery was necessary to determine 

the reliability of sampling and statistical extrapolation in determining liability and that the 

pilot study was reasonably limited in its scope to accomplish that purpose. It provided 

detailed reasoning for allowing the discovery to go forward. (ECF No. 342.)

Defendants’ consultants, Kurtzman Carson Consultants ("KCC"), have identified 

thirty-eight (38) individuals residing in 15 different states, some quite remote, whose 

depositions are necessary to their sampling technique. (Mot. at 3.) Plaintiffs now move 

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 7
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

for a protective order to prevent the taking any of these depositions at locales beyond 

the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles area. (Mot., ECF No. 378.) They assert 

that the burden and expense of taking the depositions outweigh the benefit of the 

information that would be obtained for several reasons: (1) Defendants have admitted 

that the goals of their pilot study are not achievable because a representative sample 

capable of extrapolation has not been obtained; (2) given the parties’ experience in 

depositions to date, many of the potential deponents will fail to appear, wasting the time 

and money of counsel in traveling to such distant places; and (3) that the out of area 

depositions will not assist in determining if there is bias based on geographical area. 

Defendants respond by proposing to limit the depositions to sixteen absent class 

members located in California and near Las Vegas, Nevada. (Opp'n, ECF No. 384 at 2.) 

Defendants note that the consultant, KCC has spent nearly 2,150 staff hours and over 

$244,000 attempting to locate absent class members who reside within 100 miles of 

Delano, California. (Id.) Despite this effort, the response rate remains unacceptably low 

because deponents cannot be found, or if found, refuse or fail to attend depositions. (Id.

at 2-3.) Only 69 of the 303 fieldworkers contacted by KCC ultimately sat for the 130 

deposition slots Defendants were hoping to fill. (Id.) What was intended to be a random 

and stratified study turned into a sampling of residents in the Delano area. 

While the pilot study has not gone according to plan, Defendants believe that 

further depositions will provide relevant evidence regarding whether area deponents 

might exhibit bias as a result of having been exposed to discussions in the media and 

elsewhere and communications from Plaintiffs' counsel about this case. To test this 

hypothesis, Defendants propose deposing 16 out of area fieldworkers located in 

California and Las Vegas, Nevada. 2 After reviewing the results of their attempts to 

depose those 16 absent class members, Defendants would be willing to revisit the 

propriety and method of deposing remaining out of area class members. (Id.)

 

2 Defendants note that they have proposed several alternative plans for deposing out of area 

fieldworkers, including telephone depositions, but Plaintiffs have rejected all. (Opp'n at 5-6.) 

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 7
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

Defendants acknowledge the inherent difficulty in obtaining a random, stratified 

cross-section of the 25,000 member class. Given the poor response rate to date, they 

believe testimony obtained so far may not be representative of the class in general. 

Defendants believe that depositions of out of area deponents may allow for extrapolation 

regarding local bias or its absence. Defendants pledge to remain open to means of 

accommodating Plaintiffs' counsel and the deponents. (Id.) 

In response, Plaintiffs argue that the out of area depositions are burdensome and 

would not be beneficial because Defendants have not established that bias exists in 

Delano area fieldworkers. (Reply, ECF No. 390.) 

The Court must determine whether the "burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in 

controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, 

and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c).

The Court has already found that "given the extraordinary characteristics of this case, 

including the large class size, the large amount in controversy, the issues with regard to 

credibility and reliability of the evidence provided to the Court during the certification 

phase, and the fact that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to locate and contact many of 

the absent class members" that the benefits of Defendant's "seemingly good faith, 

expertly designed, effort to seek relevant and reliable evidence" outweighed the burden 

to Plaintiffs. (Order, ECF No. 342 at 13.) 

Defendants acknowledge that the results of the pilot study have been 

disappointing. In response, they seek now to attempt to conduct 16 additional 

depositions from deponents residing out of the area but reasonably close by. The 

number of depositions is not great, but it is without question that that some additional 

effort and measureable expense will be incurred in traveling to the depositions. While 

the reasons set forth by Defendants were not previously addressed, they appear to be 

made in good faith and a reasonable effort to obtain discovery relevant to their defense. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants have described several methods and specific 

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 5 of 7
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

instances in which deponents in the Delano area might have been influenced by such 

things as radio announcements, mailings, union meetings and discussions with other 

absent class members, all pertaining to this claims in this case. (Opp'n at 4-5.) Plaintiffs 

argue that the described events are insufficient to show influence or bias. 

It is not appropriate for the Court to yet draw conclusions regarding the evidence 

so far obtained. However, the Court cannot ignore that bias or influence could 

conceivably play a role in interpreting data obtained in a pilot study or that Defendants 

have identified some events rationally capable of creating bias. It is reasonable to 

believe that Defendants efforts can provide relevant information to assist the trier of fact 

in addressing this issue at trial. 

In addition to being relevant to the issues presented, especially in light of the 

complexities of dealing with statistical and representative evidence in a class as large 

and diverse as this, Defendants’ proposal appears reasonably tailored to obtain the 

information. Some travel would be involved to depose the 16 out of area deponents, but 

the travel is not excessive, and could result in a large amount of evidence with the least 

amount of effort, especially since the potential deponents are to be clustered in the same 

geographic areas. Based on the past experiences of the parties in conducting the 

depositions, it is not likely that all sixteen depositions will actually be taken. It is not an 

unreasonable burden for Plaintiffs' counsel to attend sixteen or fewer depositions in the 

California and the Las Vegas, Nevada area. (Of course, Plaintiffs also could appear by 

telephone or associate local counsel if necessary to save expense.)

 The Court grants in part the motion for protective order and limits Defendants to 

the 16 potential deponents located in California and Las Vegas. While allowing the 

depositions to proceed, the parties should work collaboratively, and communicate openly 

to prevent any unnecessary effort and travel on behalf of opposing counsel to occur, if 

possible. 

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order is 

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 6 of 7
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

GRANTED IN PART. The Court will allow the taking of depositions of 16 potential 

witnesses in California and Las Vegas, Nevada, but otherwise grants, without prejudice, 

the motion for protective order to prevent the taking of physical depositions outside of 

California and Las Vegas, Nevada. If Defendants, after deposing the 16 deponents in 

California and Las Vegas, conclude further out of area depositions are necessary, they 

may initiate the discovery dispute process 3to request permission to proceed with 

additional depositions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

I.e. Defendants would request a telephonic discovery dispute conference if good faith efforts to 

meet and confer with Plaintiff to resolve the issue proved unsuccessful. The parties are familiar with the 

process. 

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 396 Filed 10/20/15 Page 7 of 7