Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00364/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00364-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.: Delinquent Contributions

---

1 

15cv364-BAS (DHB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TRUSTEES OF SEIU-UNITED 

SERVICE WORKERS WEST and SAN 

DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYERS TRUST 

FUND formerly known as S.E.I.U. 

LOCAL 1877 and SAN DIEGO 

COUNTY EMPLOYERS SECURITY 

TRUST FUND, in their capacity as 

fiduciaries for the SEIU-UNITED 

SERVICE WORKERS WEST and SAN 

DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYERS TRUST 

FUND, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SBM SITE SERVICES, LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 15cv364-BAS (DHB)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

[ECF No. 25] 

On November 19, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of 

Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff requests the Court compel Defendant to 

produce records in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 3 through 10. 

Defendant opposes, arguing the discovery requests exceed the scope of the time period 

alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and 

supporting exhibits, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, as 

outlined below. 

Case 3:15-cv-00364-BAS-DHB Document 26 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

15cv364-BAS (DHB)

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

I. BACKGROUND 

 On February 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging Defendant breached a 

collective bargaining agreement by failing to pay health and welfare contributions on 

behalf of union employees working at Genentech facilities in the Oceanside area. (ECF 

No. 1.) In the initial Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was audited for a single 

year – January 2013 through December 2013 – and that the audit revealed Defendant 

underpaid contributions by $1,197.64. (Id. at ¶¶13, 15.) 

 On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff sought leave to amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) 

In the motion to amend, Plaintiff stated that it sought to amend the Complaint in order 

to extend the time period of the claim so that Plaintiff could seek to recover “all amounts 

that may be discovered in the Defendant’s records which include time periods not 

explicitly set forth in the original Complaint.” (ECF No. 13.) On July 31, 2015, 

Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition, indicating it did not oppose Plaintiff’s 

request to amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 17.) 

 Plaintiff’s motion to amend was granted, and the First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) was filed on July 31, 2015. (ECF No. 19.) The FAC alleges, in relevant part: 

 13. The Trust Fund requested that the Employer comply with an 

audit of the books and records of the Employer for the period of January 

2013 through December 2013. 

 

 14. Based on the information and records provided by the 

Employer, the Trust Fund’s auditors prepared and completed an audit of 

the Employer (“Audit”). 

 15. The Audit discovered under-reported contributions owed by 

the Employer to the Trust Fund totaling $1,197.64. To date, the Employer 

has failed and refused to pay this delinquency. 

 16. The Employer’s failure to make required contributions 

remains unremedied and is continuing. 

. . . 

 20. Employer has a continuing monthly obligation to remit 

Case 3:15-cv-00364-BAS-DHB Document 26 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

15cv364-BAS (DHB)

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

contributions to the Trust Fund on behalf of all employees performing 

work covered under the Agreements; therefore, should additional amounts 

be discovered as due and owing by Employer, those amounts will be 

proven at the time of trial or other hearing. 

(ECF No. 19.) 

 On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set 

One on Defendants. (ECF No. 25-6.) In Requests Nos. 3 through 10, Plaintiff requested 

documents for an “EXTENDED AUDIT PERIOD,” which was defined as January 1, 

2014 to present. (Id.) On September 14, 2015, Defendant objected to the Requests. 

(ECF No. 25-7.) 

 On November 19, 2015, the parties filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 25.) 

Defendant argues Requests Nos. 3 through 10 are irrelevant and overbroad because they 

exceed the scope of the time period specifically alleged in the FAC. Plaintiff counters 

that the FAC provides Defendant with fair notice that its claims include time periods 

beyond the audit year 2013, and that the document requests are relevant to those claims. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 Pleadings are to be liberally construed under the “notice pleading” standards of 

the Federal Rules. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-

556 (2007); American Timber & Trading Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Oregon, 690 F.2d 

781, 786 (9th Cir. 1982). Defendant’s critique of the FAC is not unwarranted. Although 

Plaintiff indicated it wanted to extend the time period of its claims, the FAC does not 

explicitly reference 2014 or 2015. The only dates explicitly set forth in the FAC are 

from 2013. Nevertheless, under the liberal pleading standard, the FAC does give 

Defendant fair notice that Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for a time period beyond 

the year 2013. For instance, Paragraph 15 specifically refers to a $1,197.64 underpayment for 2013 and states that Defendant “has failed and refused to pay this 

delinquency.” (ECF No. 19, ¶15 (emphasis added).) Then in Paragraph 16, Plaintiff 

states Defendant’s “failure to make required contributions remains unremedied and is 

continuing.” (Id.at ¶16 (emphasis added).) The Court finds that when these paragraphs 

Case 3:15-cv-00364-BAS-DHB Document 26 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

15cv364-BAS (DHB)

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

are read together, it is clear Paragraph 16 is referring to a subsequent time period. If 

Paragraph 16 were not referring to later years, it would be redundant. In addition, 

because the year 2013 audit has been concluded, the “additional amounts” alluded to in 

Paragraph 20, must relate to subsequent years. (Id. ¶ 20.) Therefore, the Court finds 

that Requests Nos. 3 through 10 are relevant to the claims Plaintiff asserts in the FAC. 

 Accordingly, the Court will direct Defendant to produce to Plaintiff all 

documents responsive to Requests Nos. 3 through 10. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendant to 

produce records responsive to Request for Production Nos. 3 through 10 is GRANTED. 

Defendant shall produce all responsive documents to Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days 

of the date of this order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 9, 2015 ___________________________ 

 DAVID H. BARTICK 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00364-BAS-DHB Document 26 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 4