Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06030/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06030-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROXANNE SLUSHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIG LOTS STORES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06030-RS (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 59

On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff Roxanne Slusher (“Slusher”) and Defendants Big Lots 

Stores, Inc., and Big Lots F&S, Inc. (together, “Big Lots”) filed a Joint Letter Brief Regarding 

Discovery Dispute, ECF No. 59. The Court held a telephonic hearing about the letter brief on 

November 16, 2018, and now issues the following order.

The dispute concerns an interrogatory and four requests for production (“RFPs”) by which 

Slusher seeks information about potential class members. Interrogatory 1 asks Big Lots to identify 

every potential class member and each employee who supervised them during the relevant time 

period and to state each location where the potential class members worked. RFP 1 asks for all 

payroll data, wage records, wage statements, paycheck stubs or other documents that pertain to 

every potential class member during the relevant time period. RFP 2 asks for documents for every 

potential class member that describe the hours worked for Big Lots during the relevant time 

period. RFP 13 asks for documents for every potential class member who was terminated during 

the relevant time period that show the name of the employee, the termination date, whether the 

termination was voluntary or involuntary, the date of the last check provided to the employee and 

how the last payment was tendered. RFP 16 asks for documents relating to Big Lots’ time 

adjustment records for the potential class members during the relevant time period. See ECF No. 

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 61 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

59-1 (setting forth the discovery requests and Big Lots’ objections).

Prior to class certification, classwide discovery is in the Court’s discretion. See Del 

Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (C.D. Cal. 2006). “[N]umerous courts in the Northern 

District of California have allowed pre-certification discovery of putative class members’ 

confidential information subject to a protective order, without requiring prior notice to the putative 

class members.” Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-cv-2096 RS (MEJ), 2016 WL 736213, *5 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016).

The information that Slusher seeks is relevant to class certification. Interrogatory 1 seeks 

information that is relevant to, for example, numerosity and ascertainability. The identification of 

potential class members may also help Slusher’s counsel contact them and obtain evidence 

showing whether classwide treatment of Slusher’s claims is appropriate. Likewise, the RFPs seek 

documents that would tend to show whether the alleged classes and subclasses exist. Big Lots 

argues that Slusher should have to show that her claims are amenable to classwide treatment 

before she is entitled to obtain this discovery, but without this discovery there is no way she could 

show that. Requiring Slusher to effectively win her class certification motion before she can get

discovery about the alleged classes would be a pocket veto of her certification motion.

 Big Lots also argues that some of Slusher’s claims have been pursued, or are currently 

being pursued, in Viola Hubbs v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01601 JAK (ASx). But even 

in Big Lots’ telling, the overlap is pretty minimal, covering only the closing shift, rest break and 

security check claims, and not any of Slusher’s other claims. Regardless, Judge Seeborg already 

ruled that there is no overlap on the closing shift claim because the two cases cover different time 

periods and that Slusher is not bound by Hubbs’ denial of class certification on the rest period and 

security check claims. ECF No. 47. There is therefore no reason to deny discovery on these 

pending claims.

Because the requested documents and information are relevant, the real issue is burden and 

proportionality. Big Lots argues that the requested discovery is disproportional (because it should 

not have to produce it at all given the pendency of Hubbs) but at the telephonic hearing agreed that 

producing it is not burdensome. Big Lots represented that there are two sources from which it will 

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 61 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

obtain the requested information. First, information and documents through some point in 2015 

were stored in a database as .pdfs. Searching through the .pdfs to find the right documents is timeconsuming, but Big Lots did that already in connection with the Hubbs case. All of those 

documents are now in the hands of outside counsel, so additional attorney time is the only needed

step before producing them. Second, information from 2015 to the present in stored in a 

PeopleSoft database maintained by a third party. For that information, Big Lots needs to request it 

from the third party and then produce it. Big Lots represents it can complete production from the 

first source (documents in outside counsel’s possession) within 30 days, and from the second 

source (PeopleSoft) within 60 days. At the telephonic hearing Slusher agreed to this timetable.

At the hearing the Court and the parties discussed RFPs 1 and 2. RFP 1 seeks “[a]ll 

payroll data, wage records, wage statements, paycheck stubs or other documents that pertain to 

each and every potential class members during the relevant time period.” (emphasis added). Read 

literally, the reference to “other documents” means that RFP 1 seeks every document, regardless 

of content, that pertains to every potential class member. At the hearing both sides agreed Slusher 

is not seeking that. Big Lots also argued that producing paycheck stubs would be burdensome. At 

the hearing, Slusher agreed that the words “paycheck stubs or other documents” can be stricken 

from RFP 1. 

RFP 2 requests “[f]or each potential class member . . . all documents that describe the 

hours worked for [Big Lots] during the relevant time period.” It then lists as items included “time 

cards, time clock or punch clock records, records of hours worked, overtime and double-time 

records, meal and rest break records, vacation accrual, leave accrual, floating holiday accrual, paid 

time off accrual, and/or records of additional to or deductions from wages.” Producing all

documents that describe hours worked is duplicative and unwarranted. Indeed, several of the 

specific examples of types of responsive documents that Slusher lists in RFP 2 duplicate each 

other. At the hearing Big Lots explained that in response to RFP 2, it intends to produce 

electronic records that are sufficient to show the hours each potential class member worked during 

the relevant time period. Slusher agreed that was acceptable.

In the meantime, the parties need to enter into a protective order in this case to protect Big 

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 61 Filed 11/16/18 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

Lots’ employees’ privacy. See Salazar, 2016 WL 736213 at *3. At the hearing the parties agreed 

to use this District’s model protective order, and to file a proposed protective order on Monday, 

November 19, 2018.

Finally, the parties and the Court discussed at the hearing the observation in Salazar that 

“courts in this district have required that in contacting class members, Plaintiffs’ counsel is limited 

by the following requirements”:

(1) counsel must inform each potential class member that he or she 

has a right not to talk to counsel and that, if he or she elects not to 

talk to counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel will terminate the contact and not 

contact that individual again; (2) during the initial communication, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel must inform potential class members that the 

[Court] compelled [Defendant] to disclose their contact information 

and that the communication is highly confidential; and (3) any 

communications to potential class members must be fair and 

accurate, and must not be misleading, intimidating, or coercive.

Salazar, 2016 WL 736213 at *4. At the hearing Slusher agreed to comply with these limits, and 

Big Lots stated it was satisfied with them.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Big Lots must produce the information and documents requested by Interrogatory 1 

and RFPs 1, 2, 13 and 16, subject to the edits to RFPs 1 and 2 described above, within 30 or 60 

days (depending on the source, as discussed above).

2. The parties must file a proposed protective order, based on this District’s model, by 

November 19, 2018.

3. Slusher’s counsel must adhere to the above-described limitations on 

communicating with potential class members whose identity or contact information it learns from 

information or documents produced by Big Lots. These limitations do not apply to potential class 

members who initiate contact with Slusher’s counsel or whose identity or contact information they 

learn about independently of discovery in this action.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 61 Filed 11/16/18 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2018

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06030-RS Document 61 Filed 11/16/18 Page 5 of 5