Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01669/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01669-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

JENIFER WILLIAMS, an individual, on

behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

[DOC. NO. 102]

vs.

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed by the

parties on October 3, 2011. (Doc. No. 102). Defendant also filed a separate opposition. (Doc. No.

103). Plaintiff filed this case as a class action and asserted seven claims for relief as follows: (1)

unfair competition; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of state law; (3) failure to provide

wages when due; (4) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate

itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay overtime in violation ofthe federal Fair Labor

Standards Act ("FLSA"); (7) for civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private

Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab.Code §§ 2698 et seq. Plaintiff’s motion to certify the

class in this case was denied. (Doc. No. 92). 

At issue are four Requests for Production, numbered 72 through 75, propounded by

Plaintiff upon Defendant in Set Three. 

- 1 - 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01669-WQH-MDD Document 106 Filed 10/05/11 Page 1 of 5
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

Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim

or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of

any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for

discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no

requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather,

relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter that could

bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437

U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery

purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have

broad discretion to limit discovery where 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the burden

or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed.

R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and

related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the

reasons.” Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s

possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not

required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a nonparty entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who

is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D.Cal.1995).

Discussion

1. Request for Production No. 72

Plaintiff seeks the production of records of hours worked by Network Data Communication

- 2 - 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01669-WQH-MDD Document 106 Filed 10/05/11 Page 2 of 5
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

Analysts (“NDCAs”) during the relevant time period. Defendant has agreed to produce a timekeeping system report for the period July 31, 2008, for System Administrators, NDCAs, and

NDCA Srs. employed by the Defendant in California. No further response is required.

2. Request for Production No. 73

Plaintiff seeks all payroll records for NDCAs during the relevant time period. Defendant

has agreed to produce this data from November 19, 2008. There is a dispute regarding the

relevant time period. Plaintiff claims that it begins on July 31, 2008; Defendant claims that it

begins on November 19, 2008. The dispute relates to whether the initiation date is from the filing

of the lawsuit or from the date that the State of California declined to initiate the PAGA claim that

is the basis for this discovery. The Court need not resolve this issue. Rather, since the burden of

producing the requested data from July 31, 2008, instead of from November 19, 2008, does not

appear oppressive, the Court will ORDER that the data to be produced extend to July 31, 2008. 

3. Request for Production No. 74

Plaintiff seeks all contracts between Defendant and any third party which relate to the job

duties performed by NDCAs. Defendant objects on the grounds that this request previously was

made, challenged and ruled upon by a prior Magistrate Judge adversely to Plaintiff and that the

request remains overbroad, oppressive and irrelevant. Defendant also claims that responding to

this request may involve the production of information which must remain confidential by the

terms of the contract. Plaintiff claims that it is relevant to the pending PAGA claim which is

representative in nature.

Defendant is correct that the nearly identical request was denied by a prior Magistrate

Judge. (Doc. No. 46 at 7). At that time the Magistrate Judge determined the request to be

overbroad and vague, “[u]ntil the Court has defined the Class that is to be certified . . . .” Id. Class

certification ultimately was denied in this case yet Plaintiff now seeks the same discovery claiming

relevance to her representative PAGA claim. Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the

issue of whether a PAGA claim must meet the certification standards for a class action under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, a District Judge of this Court recently held that Rule 23 does apply to PAGA

- 3 - 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01669-WQH-MDD Document 106 Filed 10/05/11 Page 3 of 5
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

claims. See Ivey v. Apogen Technologies, Inc., 2011 WL 3515936 (S.D. Cal.). Consequently, no

class having been certified in this case, this Court will re-affirm the prior Magistrate Judge’s ruling

that the requested discovery is overbroad, vague and intrudes into confidential agreements. 

And, having reviewed the matter independently, this Court agrees with Defendant that the

request is overbroad and vague. Contracts which “relate” to the job duties performed by NDCAs is

too ambiguous to provide meaningful direction to Defendant. Even disclosure of contract terms

purporting to define the job duties of NDCAs in connection with a given contract may not be

relevant. The relevant concern is the job duties actually performed by NDCAs, not how they are

described in third party contracts. Plaintiff concedes as much. (Doc. No. 102 at 9). No response

is required.

4. Request for Production No. 75

Plaintiff requests all documents submitted or filled out by NDCAs during the relevant

period using any electronic ticketing systems. This request is substantially similar to a request

previously ruled upon by a prior Magistrate Judge. (See Doc. Nos. 59, 61). The Magistrate Judge

found the similar request to be:

overbroad and oppressive at this stage of discovery (and perhaps at all stages of

discovery). The discovery sought, and the reasons given for seeking such

discovery, may be ascertained by less obtrusive means, such as deposition.

 (Doc. No. 61). With class certification denied, and for the reasons expressed above regarding RFP

No. 74, this Court will affirm the prior ruling. Moreover, the relevance of this request is not

obvious. Plaintiff claims that this discovery will tend to show what duties the NDCAs actually

performed. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has deposed Defendant, under Rule 30(b)(6), on this

issue and learned that only a minority of the work of the NDCAs is driven by tickets. (Doc. No.

103 at 4). Defendant also states that it had numerous electronic ticketing systems in use during the

relevant period and that it does not keep records of the various ticketing systems that may be

accessed by every qualified employee. (Doc. No. 102 at 16). The Court agrees with Defendant

that to the extent there is any relevance to this request, it is outweighed substantially by the burden

of production. No further response is required.

- 4 - 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01669-WQH-MDD Document 106 Filed 10/05/11 Page 4 of 5
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

Conclusion

Any discovery ordered above must be provided no later than thirty (30) days from the date

of the entry of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: October 5, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 09cv1669 WQH (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-01669-WQH-MDD Document 106 Filed 10/05/11 Page 5 of 5