Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00081/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00081-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA CULLEY, No. 2:15-CV-0081-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

LINCARE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action for

violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., as well as California

Labor Code §§ 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and 1198. The case was removed from

Sacramento County Superior Court based on diversity. Pending before the court are the

following motions: (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses from defendant

Alpha Respiratory, Inc. (“Alpha”) (Doc. 17); and (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel further

discovery responses from defendant Lincare, Inc. (“Lincare”) (Doc. 23). Following oral

arguments before the undersigned on August 19, 20015, (as to Alpha) and October 21, 2015, (as

to Lincare), the matters were submitted. 

/ / /

1

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 17
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

I. BACKGROUND

In her complaint, plaintiff claims: (1) defendants deprived her of overtime wages 

as a result of defendant’s failure to include certain bonuses into the regular rate of pay; 

(2) defendants deprived her meal and rest breaks and/or related compensation; and (3) defendants

failed to pay “reporting time pay.” Generally, plaintiff alleges that she and similarly situated

employees were required to remain on “stand-by” or “on-call” status for 24 hours per day and

that defendants failed to pay her overtime wages. Plaintiff seeks class certification and defines

the putative class as “herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees” of

defendants Lincare and Alpha. 

1

As to defendant Alpha, plaintiff seeks further responses to requests for production

2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 30, 34, and 35, and interrogatories 5, 6, and 7. As to defendant Lincare,

plaintiff seeks further responses to requests for production 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 30, 34, and 35, and

interrogatories 5, 6, and 7. Plaintiff groups these discovery requests into seven categories:

Payroll and Time Records Requests for production 2, 4 (Alpha only), and 35.

Wage Statements Requests for production 3 and 34.

Contact Information Request for production 10.

Interrogatory 7.

Compensation Policies Requests for production 12 and 13.

Wage and Hour Complaints Request for production 30.

Relationship with Co-Defendant Request for production 31.

Contention Interrogatories Interrogatories 5 and 6. 

Additionally, plaintiff seeks an order compelling the deposition of defendants’ Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witnesses. 

/ / /

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Alpha is a wholly-owned

1

subsidiary of defendant Lincare and refers to defendants collectively as joint employers.

2

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 17
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

II. DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), permissible discovery consists

broadly of “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s clam for defense. . . .”

Relevant information includes that which is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” In order to obtain class certification, plaintiff must establish numerosity,

commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The court must

provide an opportunity to present all information relevant in making a class certification

determination. See Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1312-1313 (9th Cir.

1977). Through the pending motions, plaintiff seeks to discover such information.

A. Written Discovery Propounded to Defendant Alpha

1. Payroll and Time Records

In dispute are requests for production 2, 4, and 35. 

Request for Production 2

Produce, in electronic format, all payroll records for the plaintiff

during the relevant time period.

Request for Production 4

Produce, in electronic format, documents sufficient to evidence the

hours worked by plaintiff, including time and clock-in records,

during the relevant time period. 

Request for Production 35

Produce, in electronic format, documents sufficient to evidence the

hours worked by the class members, including time and clock-in

records, during the relevant time period.

Defendant Alpha agreed to provide plaintiff’s payroll records and time and clock-in records

subject to an agreement on format (which the parties were unable to reach). Defendant Alpha

objects to providing records in response to request for production 35 because the information

sought relating to putative class members is not relevant and the request is overbroad. 

/ / /

3

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 17
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

Regarding format, defendant Alpha maintains that the requested records – both as

to plaintiff and putative class members – exist only on paper and that producing the requested

records in electronic format as plaintiff seeks would be overly burdensome. According to

plaintiff, it is simply unbelievable that the information does not exist in electronic format,

particularly given that the records were initially created by logging in and out via an electronic

system. Plaintiff argues that defendant Alpha has provided no evidence to meet its burden in

sustaining its objection. 

The question is whether defendant Alpha has established the factual basis for its

objection – that the information requested does not exist in electronic format because it was not

electronically created and/or stored. Defendant Alpha argues:

. . .Specifically, and as explained in the declaration of Paula Adams

[defendant Alpha’s Director of Employee Relations], the payroll records of

Plaintiff and other employees are not kept and maintained by defendant,

but instead kept and maintained by a third-party payroll processor, ADP. 

(Citations to Adams declaration omitted). Those records are only

accessible to Defendant in PDF format. When attempting to convert the

earnings statements to Excel-readable format like Plaintiff’s, the results of

the conversion become jumbled and not all the lines appear in the correct

order. As a result, the conversion process is unduly burdensome for

Defendant in that it would be require [sic] significant about [sic] of time to

first convert the records into Excel, then manually review each record with

the corresponding converted record to correct any errors. 

In her declaration, Ms. Adams states: “The earning statements for Plaintiff and other employees

are kept and maintained by a third-party payroll services processor, ADP. Those statements are

only accessible to Defendant [Alpha] in PDF format.”

Defendant Alpha’s evidence – consisting entirely of Ms. Adams’ declaration – is

insufficient. First, the evidence does not speak to all of the documents requested. Specifically,

plaintiff requested payroll, time, and clock-in records. Ms. Adams, however, only addresses

“earnings statements,” which would be most akin to payroll records. Defendant does not provide

any evidence regarding time record and clock-in records. Next, as to earnings statements, while

Ms. Adams states that ADP keeps and maintains those records, she does not state which format

4

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 17
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

ADP uses to keep and maintain records. Ms. Adams states merely that the records are “only

accessible to Defendant” in PDF format. ADP, however, is presumably paid by defendant Alpha

for payroll-related services and is, therefore, defendant Alpha’s agent. Defendant Alpha does not

explain whether its agent ADP maintains defendant Alpha’s records in electronic format and, if

so, why its agent ADP cannot provide them to defendant Alpha in electronic format. Defendant

Alpha’s objection as to format is overruled.

Because defendant Alpha has agreed to provide plaintiff’s payroll, time, and

clock-in records, and because its objections as to format are overruled, the next issue is whether

defendant Alpha’s objections to request for production 35 – seeking records of class members –

should be sustained. Plaintiff argues that the records sought are relevant to the class certification

determination, and that any privacy concerns can be cured through redaction or protective order. 

As to class certification, plaintiff contends that the records sought are relevant to the issues of

commonality and numerosity. 

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing that the

class certification requirements have been met, or that the discovery sought is likely to

substantiate her class certification request. As indicated above, however, plaintiff is to be

afforded the opportunity to discover and present evidence which may be helpful to the court in

determining whether to approve class certification. Moreover, documents consisting of time and

wage records are relevant for purposes of showing numerosity and commonality. See Hill v.

Eddie Bauer, 242 F.R.D. 556, 561-62 (C.D. Cal. 2007). 

Likewise, defendant has not addressed why privacy concerns which might

outweigh relevance cannot be addressed by redaction, protective order, or some other

mechanism. At the August 2015 hearing, the parties indicated that defendant Alpha maintains

eight facilities in California employing a total of 45 people who would be part of the putative

class. Given the relatively small number of individuals involved, a protective order would be

sufficient to address privacy concerns. 

5

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 17
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

Finally, as to the remaining objection that the request for production 35 is

overbroad, defendant Alpha argues that production should be limited in scope to documents

relating to plaintiff’s facility given plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she lacks knowledge of

practices at defendant Alpha’s other facilities. This objection is overruled given the

representation that defendant Alpha maintains only eight facilities employing 45 people. 

2. Wage Statements

In dispute are requests for production 3 and 34.

Request for Production 3

Produce copies of the itemized wages statements that were

provided to plaintiff during the relevant time period.

Request for Production 34

Produce copies of the itemized wages statements that were

provided to the class members during the relevant time period. 

Again, defendant Alpha agreed to provide plaintiff’s records in response to request for

production 3, subject to an agreement on format (which is not an issue as to requests for

production 3 and 34 because plaintiff did not request any specific format). With respect to class

member records in response to request for production 34, defendant Alpha stated in its response

that no records will be produced absent a protective order. 

Because plaintiff has not requested her wage statements in any particular format,

defendant Alpha’s objection as to format is overruled. The documents remaining in dispute – the

itemized wage statements of class members – are relevant to showing numerosity and

commonality. See Hill, 242 F.R.D. at 561-62. Defendant Alpha’s relevance objection is

overruled notwithstanding its assertion that plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a stand-alone

wage statement claim (which plaintiff disputes). Defendant offers no argument in support of its

objection that the request for class member wage statements is burdensome and oppressive, and

the objection is overruled. As to privacy, defendant Alpha merely repeats the argument

discussed above without addressing potential methods of protecting class members’ privacy

6

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 6 of 17
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

interests, such as a protective order which is appropriate given the relatively small number of

records at issue. 

3. Contact Information

In dispute are request for production 10 and interrogatory 7.

Request for Production 10

Produce, in electronic, Excel spreadsheet format, documents

sufficient to evidence the names and dates of employment, last

known telephone numbers, last known addresses, and last known

e-mail addresses of every class member who worked for you

during the relevant time period.

Interrogatory 7

Identify all class members by providing the person’s full legal

name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last

known e-mail address(es), dates of employment, rate(s) of pay for

each pay period, and job title(s) held during each pay period. 

As to request for production 10, defendant Alpha objected to the request as: (1) overbroad and

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) seeking information

protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges; (3) burdensome and

oppressive; and (4) as seeking information that is confidential and/or private. As to interrogatory

7, defendant Alpha objected that the request is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence. 

As to relevance, plaintiff cites Hill as well as Putnam v. Eli Lilly & Co., 508 F.

Supp. 2d 812 (C.D. Cal. 2007), for the proposition that she is entitled to contact information for

putative class members as a due process right in litigating a class action lawsuit. Defendant does

not respond other than referring the court to its response regarding request for production 34,

discussed above. The court finds that the discovery sought is relevant. Defendant Alpha’s

relevance objections are overruled. 

/ / /

/ / /

7

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 7 of 17
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

Regarding privacy issues, plaintiff argues that a protective order can address

defendant Alpha’s concerns, and the court agrees. Defendant does not respond to this position. 

Defendant Alpha also offers no argument in support of its objection that the requests at issue here

are burdensome, nor does defendant Alpha support its objection that the information sought is

protected by either the attorney-client or work-product privileges. These objections are

overruled. 

While the requests are somewhat duplicative of one another (though defendant

does not object on this ground), plaintiff is entitled to a contact list. Defendant Alpha should

provide plaintiff with the raw documents in response to request for production 10 from which she

can derive a contact list, or defendant Alpha should itself provide a contact list in response to

interrogatory 7. Defendant Alpha will not, however, be required to do both. 

4. Compensation Policies

In dispute are requests for production 12 and 13.

Request for Production 12

Produce all documents constituting defendant’s policies with

respect to providing bonus compensation to the class members

during the relevant time period. 

Request for Production 13

Produce all documents constituting defendant’s policies with

respect to providing all forms of compensation to the class

members during the relevant time period. 

According to defendant Alpha, the parties have agreed on the scope of these requests and

defendant Alpha has already produced responsive documents. Plaintiff’s motion seeking further

responses from defendant Alpha as to these requests is, therefore, moot. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

8

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 8 of 17
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

5. Wage and Hour Complaints

In dispute is request for production 30.

Request for Production 30

Produce all documents that evidence or show any and all claims

submitted to any state or federal court or federal, state, or local

governmental agencies or entities including, without limitation, the

California Labor Commissioner and the California Division of

Labor Standards and Enforcement, regarding defendant’s wage and

hour practices relating to the class members during the last ten

years.

Plaintiff states that the scope of this request has been limited by agreement during the meet-andconfer process to only those complaints that alleged bonus miscalculation, missed meal and/or

breaks, and/or reporting time issues. 

According to plaintiff, while these documents may be public records, “Defendant

is in the best position to produce such documents. . . .” Defendant Alpha offers no rebuttal. 

Similarly, defendant Alpha makes no effort to support its objections based on privilege or

relevance. Rather, defendant Alpha states that, based on the agreed limitation in the scope of the

request, it is still in the process of identifying responsive documents and that it will supplement

its responses. Plaintiff’s motion seeking further responses from defendant Alpha to request for

production 30 will be denied without prejudice to seeking a further response after defendant

Alpha supplements its initial response. 

6. Relationship with Co-Defendant Lincare

In dispute is request for production 31.

Request for Production 31

Produce documents sufficient to evidence the relationship between

defendant and Lincare, Inc., during the relevant time period. 

Defendant Alpha objected to this request on the grounds that: (1) the request is overbroad and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) the documents

requested are publically available records equally available to plaintiff; (3) the request requires

9

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 9 of 17
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

Defendant to expend substantial time and resources in order to obtain the information necessary

to provide a full and complete response, and/or are voluminous, and therefore the request is

burdensome and oppressive; and (4) the request seeks information that is confidential and/or

constitutes business proprietary and/or trade secret information.

Plaintiff contends that, despite defendants’ assertion that Lincare was not

plaintiff’s employer, employment documents such as paystubs and the like reflect Lincare’s logo. 

Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to know the business relationship between the two entities in

order to determine whether Lincare is a proper defendant. Plaintiff also argues that any privacy

concerns have been rendered moot by a protective order already entered in the case. 

The court agrees with plaintiff that she is entitled to discovery concerning the

relationship between Lincare and Alpha, particularly given the dispute that appears to exist as to

whether defendants can be considered co-employers. As to defendant Alpha’s specific

objections, in the current motion defendant Alpha argues only that the request is vague, though it

did not object on this basis. Defendant Alpha does not offer any support for the objections it did

assert, which are overruled. 

7. Contention Interrogatories

In dispute are interrogatories 5 and 6.

Interrogatory 5

State all facts which support any of the reasons why you contend

that the claims of plaintiff are not typical of the claims of the class

members for purposes of class certification.

Interrogatory 6

State all facts which support any of the reasons why you contend

that common questions of law and fact do not predominate in this

action for purposes of class certification.

Defendant Alpha objected on the following grounds: (1) the requests are overbroad and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) the requests seek

information protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges; (3) the

10

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 10 of 17
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

requests seeks to elicit a legal opinion or conclusion; and (4) the requests are premature. 

The court finds that the interrogatories at issue here clearly seek facts supporting a

legal defense, not legal opinions or conclusions. Such contention interrogatories are appropriate. 

As to defendant Alpha’s argument that they are premature, plaintiff correctly notes that defendant

Alpha has taken plaintiff’s deposition and all employer-related documents are already in its

possession. Defendant Alpha’s argument that it does not know what plaintiff will assert in the

class certification motion is unpersuasive given that Rule 23 outlines exactly what plaintiff must

show in such a motion. Finally, defendant Alpha cites no in-circuit authority for its privilege

objections. Defendant Alpha will be required to provide supplemental responses to

interrogatories 5 and 6. 

B. Discovery Propounded to Defendant Lincare

1. Payroll and Time Records

In dispute are requests for production 2 and 35. 

Request for Production 2

Produce, in electronic format, all payroll records for the plaintiff

during the relevant time period.

Request for Production 35

Produce, in electronic format, documents sufficient to evidence the

hours worked by the class members, including time and clock-in

records, during the relevant time period. 

In response to request for production 2, defendant Lincare stated that it has no responsive

documents in its possession, custody, or control because it is not plaintiff’s employer. In

response to request for production 35, defendant Lincare refused to provide any documents

because it is not plaintiff’s employer and, thus, plaintiff has no standing to pursue claims against

it. Defendant Lincare also argues that the records of its employees are not relevant to plaintiff’s

claims or request for class certification. 

/ / /

11

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 11 of 17
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

As to request for production 2, defendant Lincare responded that it has no payroll

documents in its possession. The motion for further responses from defendant Lincare is denied

as to request for production 2. 

As to request for production 35 – which seeks information regarding employees of

defendant Lincare – defendant Lincare argues that such discovery is not relevant to plaintiff’s

claims with respect to individuals who were never employed by Alpha. Defendant states: “Not

relevant to this case. . . are any of the policies, procedures, or practices which relate solely to

Defendant [Lincare] and its own employees.” Defendant Lincare further states that, as to

documents relating to individuals who were employed by Alpha, those materials may be obtained

by way of discovery directed to Alpha (which, again, is the subject of the companion motion as

to Alpha, discussed above). In making these arguments, defendant Lincare notes that plaintiff

has defined the class in this case as individuals who were jointly employed by Lincare and Alpha. 

Thus, defendant concludes, plaintiff is not entitled to any information regarding individuals who

were not jointly employed.

Defendant’s argument is persuasive as to request for production 35 to the extent it

seeks information regarding individuals who are not part of the purported class of people

working jointly for Alpha and Lincare. Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery concerning people

who are not part of the class, i.e., individuals employed solely by Lincare. The motion for further

responses from defendant Lincare as to request for production 35 is denied. 

2. Wage Statements

In dispute are requests for production 3 and 34.

Request for Production 3

Produce copies of the itemized wages statements that were

provided to plaintiff during the relevant time period.

Request for Production 34

Produce copies of the itemized wages statements that were

provided to the class members during the relevant time period.

12

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 12 of 17
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

Defendant Lincare responded to request for production 3 by stating that it has no responsive

documents in its possession, custody, or control because it is not plaintiff’s employer. 

Defendant Lincare refused to provide any documents in response to request for production 34

because documents related to individuals employed solely by Lincare are not relevant. 

Defendant Lincare’s objections as to requests for production 3 and 34 are

sustained. 

3. Contact Information

In dispute are request for production 10 and interrogatory 7.

Request for Production 10

Produce, in electronic, Excel spreadsheet format, documents

sufficient to evidence the names and dates of employment, last

known telephone numbers, last known addresses, and last known

e-mail addresses of every class member who worked for you

during the relevant time period. 

Interrogatory 7

Identify all class members by providing the person’s full legal

name, last known address, last known telephone number(s), last

know e-mail address(es), dates of employment, rate(s) of pay for

each pay period, and job title(s) held during each pay period. 

Again, defendant Lincare objected based on relevance. The objection is sustained for the reasons

discussed above. 

4. Compensation Policies

In dispute are requests for production 12 and 13.

Request for Production 12

Produce all documents constituting defendant’s policies with

respect to providing bonus compensation to the class members

during the relevant time period. 

Request for Production 13

Produce all documents constituting defendant’s policies with

respect to providing all forms of compensation to the class

members during the relevant time period. 

13

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 13 of 17
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

Defendant Lincare’s objection based on relevance is sustained. 

5. Wage and Hour Complaints

In dispute is request for production 30.

Request for Production 30

Produce all documents that evidence or show any and all claims

submitted to any state or federal court or federal, state, or local

governmental agencies or entities including, without limitation, the

California Labor Commissioner and the California Division of

Labor Standards and Enforcement, regarding defendant’s wage and

hour practices relating to the class members during the last ten

years.

Defendant Lincare’s objection based on relevance is sustained. 

6. Relationship with Co-Defendant Alpha

In dispute is request for production 31.

Request for Production 31

Produce documents sufficient to evidence the relationship between

defendant and Alpha Respiratory, Inc., during the relevant time

period. 

As with plaintiff’s request for production 31 propounded to defendant Alpha, discussed above,

the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to the documents sought in this request, particularly given

that defendant Lincare is defendant Alpha’s parent company.

2

7. Contention Interrogatories

In dispute are interrogatories 5 and 6.

Interrogatory 5

State all facts which support any of the reasons why you contend

that the claims of plaintiff are not typical of the claims of the class

members for purposes of class certification.

/ / /

The court recognizes that, to some extent, the same documents will be responsive 2

as to both defendants.

14

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 14 of 17
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

Interrogatory 6

State all facts which support any of the reasons why you contend

that common questions of law and fact do not predominate in this

action for purposes of class certification.

As with contention interrogatories propounded to defendant Alpha, discussed above, plaintiff is

entitled to further responses to these interrogatories. Defendant Lincare will be required to

provide supplemental responses to interrogatories 5 and 6. 

C. Depositions of Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Witnesses

In her motions, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to produce their

respective Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witnesses. Because the record shows that

defendant Alpha’s corporate witness was deposed on August 13, 2015, plaintiff’s request with

respect to defendant Alpha is denied as moot. 

Turning to defendant Lincare, plaintiff states that she served a deposition notice

for defendant Lincare’s corporate witness on April 16, 2015, and that the parties agreed that the

deposition would take place on July 31, 2015. Plaintiff further states that, on June 15, 2015,

defendant Lincare served an objection to plaintiff’s deposition notice stating that no witness

would be produced to testify on behalf of defendant Lincare on any topic. Defendant Lincare

cited its relevance objection discussed above. No witness was produced on July 31, 2015. 

As plaintiff notes, Rule 30(b)(6) authorizes a party to take the deposition of a

corporate witness and that such witness must testify about information known or reasonably

available to the company on whose behalf the witness testifies. While defendant Lincare’s

relevance objection relating to discovery of material relating to individuals employed solely by

Lincare is well taken, it is not a basis to refuse to produce its corporate witness. Such an

objection would more appropriately be raised at the deposition in the context of specific

questions posed by plaintiff’s counsel to Lincare’s corporate witness. 

/ / /

/ / /

15

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 15 of 17
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

Further, though a Lincare employee was designated by defendant Alpha as it’s

corporate witness, and though such witness was deposed on August 13, 2015, concerning

defendant Alpha, this is not to say that plaintiff has had an opportunity to obtain relevant

deposition testimony concerning Lincare (for example, its corporate relationship with Alpha). 

This could be either because a different Lincare employee would be designated as the personnel

most knowledgeable on behalf of defendant Lincare, or because the scope of the August 13,

2015, deposition was limited to defendant Alpha. In any event, the court finds that plaintiff is

entitled to take the deposition of a witness (and it may be the same witness who was deposed on

August 13, 2015) who will testify on behalf of defendant Lincare. 

D. Sanctions

In both motions, plaintiff seeks sanctions, presumably under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(a)(5), though she does not specify the statutory authority for the request. 

Defendants object to plaintiff’s requests on the basis that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that

her counsel’s rate is consistent with prevailing rates in the community. The court agrees. 

Plaintiff’s counsel states that her hourly rate is $395.00 per hour. Plaintiff has not, however,

made any showing that this rate is in line with the prevailing rate. For this reason, plaintiff’s

requests for sanctions are denied. See Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir.

2008). 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 17) as to defendant Alpha is granted in

part and denied in part as follows:

a. Defendant Alpha shall serve supplemental responses to

requests for production 2, 4, and 35, in electronic format as

maintained by ADP;

b. Defendant Alpha shall serve supplemental responses to

16

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 16 of 17
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

requests for production 3 and 34;

c. Defendant Alpha shall serve a supplement response to

request for production 10 or interrogatory 7;

d. Defendant Alpha shall serve a supplemental response to

request for production 31;

e. Defendant Alpha shall serve supplemental responses to

interrogatories 5 and 6;

f. Defendant Alpha shall serve its supplemental responses,

and produce responsive documents, within 21 days of the

date of this order;

g. Documents produced by defendant Alpha in compliance

with this order which relate to individuals other than

plaintiff shall be subject to a stipulated protective order;

and

h. The parties shall meet and confer and submit to the court a

proposed stipulated protective order within 14 days of the

date of this order;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 23) as to defendant Lincare is granted

in part and denied in part as follows; 

a. Defendant Lincare shall serve a supplemental response to

request for production 31;

b. Defendant Lincare shall serve supplemental responses to

interrogatories 5 and 6;

c. Defendant Lincare shall serve its supplemental responses,

and produce responsive documents, within 21 days of the

date of this order; and

d. On notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(b)(1), defendant Lincare shall produce its corporate

witness for deposition, such deposition to occur within 21

days of the date of this order.

DATED: November 2, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 11/02/15 Page 17 of 17