Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02252/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02252-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY DUKES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, Inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 01-cv-2252 CRB (JSC)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION RE: 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS (Dkt. 

No. 866)

In accordance with the Court’s Order filed March 1, 2013 (Dkt. No. 863), the parties 

submitted supplemental letter briefs detailing disputes regarding pre-certification discovery. 

(Dkt. Nos. 865 & 866). By Order of March 13, 2013, the Court addressed Plaintiffs’ 

supplemental letter brief. (Dkt. No. 872.) The Court rules as follows with respect to the 

discovery sought in Wal-Mart’s Supplemental Submission (Dkt. No. 866).

DISCUSSION

Wal-Mart’s supplemental submission seeks to compel responses its interrogatories, 

requests for admission, and requests for the production of documents. The Court addresses 

each in turn.

1. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Responses

Interrogatory Nos. 2-4 – Plaintiffs must respond as to the named Plaintiffs and the 

individuals disclosed in Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures. To the extent Wal-Mart seeks 

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 9
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

discovery of absent class members, such discovery is not routinely granted and Wal-Mart has 

made no showing as to the necessity of this discovery. See, e.g., Holman v. Experian Info. 

Solutions, Inc., No. 11-00180, 2012 WL 2568202 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012) (noting that 

discovery of absent class members is often limited).

Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 – Plaintiffs have agreed to 

supplement their responses to these interrogatories, the dispute only concerns the timing of 

Plaintiffs’ response. Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses by April 11, 2013.

Interrogatory No. 15 –Defendant seeks identification of all of the documents upon 

which Plaintiffs intend to rely in seeking class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification, however, is presently due in less than one month. Defendant does not explain 

how it will use the information from this interrogatory given that when the motion is filed it 

will know precisely which documents Plaintiffs rely upon. Accordingly Plaintiffs’ objection 

is sustained.

Interrogatory No. 17 – Plaintiffs shall respond for the Requests for Admission 

ordered below.

2. Plaintiffs’ Responses to Requests for Admission

There are 16 Requests for Admission in dispute. Following meet and confer and 

clarification of the requests, Plaintiffs have offered to respond to all but four of the Requests 

for Admission by April 11, 2013. Wal-Mart seeks responses by March 22, 2013. Given the 

impending class certification filing deadline, Plaintiffs’ proposed response date is reasonable. 

The delay does not prejudice Wal-Mart since its opposition brief is not due until May 31, 

2013. Plaintiffs shall respond to the modified versions of Requests for Admission Nos. 1, 9, 

10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 29 by April 11, 2013.

Request for Admission No. 4 – Seeks an admission regarding whether there was 

uniform criteria applied by store managers when making pay decisions within the 

compensation guidelines. Plaintiffs contend that the reference to “pay decisions” is vague 

and ambiguous. However, the phrase “pay decisions” is used in the Fourth Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”) at least three times. (See Dkt. No. 767 ¶¶ 47 & 50.) Plaintiffs can 

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 9
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

therefore provide at least a qualified response to the request based on their understanding of 

the term as used in the FAC.

Request for Admission No. 21 – Seeks an admission regarding a meeting for all 

District Managers on January 24, 2004 referenced in Paragraph 75 of the FAC, but Wal-Mart 

has declined to tell Plaintiffs who attended the meeting. Plaintiffs need not respond to this 

Request.

Request for Admission No. 27 – Seeks an admission that some women were paid 

more than some men in the same position at the same store. Plaintiffs object to this request as 

vague and ambiguous as it is not temporally limited, nor is it clear what Wal-Mart means by 

“some.” Plaintiffs also contend that they cannot respond to the request without the HR data 

which Wal-Mart has not produced yet. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs need not respond to this 

Request. If Defendant believes there is no dispute that certain women were paid more than 

certain men its request should have specifically identified the persons, their stores, and the 

pay periods so that Plaintiffs could review the HR data and confirm the information. 

Request for Admission No. 28 – Seeks an admission that some women in the putative 

class were selected for promotion over men with longer tenure. For the reasons stated above,

Plaintiffs need not respond to this Request.

3. Requests for the Production of Documents

Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 1-3 – As originally drafted, these 

requests called for documents relating to Wal-Mart’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories. Wal-Mart 

contends that this was a typographical error and it intended to request documents relating to 

its Fifth Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs responded to the requests with respect to the Fourth 

Set of Interrogatories and contend that Wal-Mart is now seeking to re-write the request to 

seek documents relating to the Fifth Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs do not suggest that these 

requests are objectionable other than because Wal-Mart now seeks responses for a different 

set of interrogatories than originally propounded. Plaintiffs shall respond to the requests with 

respect to the Fifth Set of Interrogatories.

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 3 of 9
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

Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 4, 6, 17-20, 22, 33, 36, 37 and 38 –

Plaintiffs have agreed to produce “relevant, non-privileged, responsive documents that have 

not previously been produced in this litigation.” Wal-Mart contends that Plaintiffs have not 

produced any responsive documents other than EEOC charges and is thus concerned that 

Plaintiffs are not producing responsive documents. Wal-Mart thus (1) seeks confirmation that 

there are no other responsive documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, (2) identification, by BatesStamp number, of any documents previously produced by either party that are responsive to 

newly propounded discovery requests, and (3) confirmation that Plaintiffs are not withholding 

documents as privileged. For these and all other requests for the production of documents 

referenced herein the Court orders the following:

First, Plaintiffs must produce responsive documents in their possession, custody or 

control to the extent they have not previously produced such documents and the documents 

were not previously produced by Defendant. Plaintiffs are not obligated to provide the names 

and contact information for third parties who might possess responsive documents. 

Plaintiffs shall produce the responsive documents by April 11, 2013. 

Second, Plaintiffs need not identify by Bates-Stamp number which documents are 

responsive to which discovery requests. Wal-Mart is essentially asking Plaintiffs to identify 

which of Wal-Mart’s own documents Plaintiffs believe are responsive to Wal-Mart’s 

discovery requests; thus, the request is a contention interrogatory. The Court has already 

addressed Defendant’s interrogatories. Further, as to new documents, if any, produced by 

Plaintiffs, it does not appear that the numbers will be so voluminous as to require Plaintiffs to 

identify to which request the documents are responsive.

Third, to the extent Plaintiffs are withholding responsive documents as privileged, they 

must provide a privilege log consistent with their obligations under Rule 26(b)(5). The log 

must be produced by April 11, 2013.

For Request Numbers 17-20, 22, and 33, Plaintiffs shall produce documents from the 

named Plaintiffs, the individuals listed in Plaintiffs’ supplemental disclosures, any class 

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 4 of 9
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

certification declarants, and the individuals for whom Plaintiffs previously produced EEOC 

charges. 

Request for the Production of Documents No. 7 – Seeks “All DOCUMENTS 

reflecting or RELATING TO any alleged employment discrimination, sexual harassment or 

retaliation at WAL-MART, including but not limited to the allegation that WAL-MART 

maintained a “pattern or practice of gender discrimination and promotion” as alleged in 

Paragraph 5 of the COMPLAINT.” Plaintiffs object to the request as overbroad and 

burdensome. The Court agrees. The request seeks documents reflecting claims of 

discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation based on race, disability, national origin, and 

other grounds wholly unrelated to this litigation. The Court sustains Plaintiffs’ objection to 

the request.

Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 – Seek communications 

between the named Plaintiffs and any WITNESS which is defined as any person identified in 

Plaintiffs’ disclosures as well as all persons likely to have discoverable information regarding 

the claims and defenses to the allegations in the complaint regardless of whether Plaintiffs 

intend to rely on the individual’s’ testimony; as well as communications between any such 

witnesses and Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart representatives. Plaintiffs object to these requests as 

overbroad and burdensome and are particularly concerned about discovery of absent class 

members. To the extent that Wal-Mart seeks discovery of absent class members, this request 

overreaches. See Holman v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 11-00180, 2012 WL 2568202, 

at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012) (“[d]iscovery of absent class members, while not forbidden, is 

rarely permitted due to the facts that absent class members are not parties to the action, and 

that to permit extensive discovery would defeat the purpose of class actions which is to 

prevent massive joinder of small claims”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Plaintiffs shall produce documents from the named Plaintiffs, the individuals listed in 

Plaintiffs’ supplemental disclosures, any class certification declarants, and the individuals for 

whom Plaintiffs previously produced EEOC charges. 

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 5 of 9
6

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

Request for the Production of Documents No. 11 – Seeks “All 

COMMUNICATIONS to or from any PERSON who is not a named party in this action 

RELATING TO the allegations in the COMPLAINT, including but not limited to 

COMMUNICATIONS with current and former employees of WAL-MART, customers of 

WAL- MART, government agencies, union representatives, and media outlets.” Although 

Wal-Mart states that the request is reasonable because it is designed to capture 

communications between the named Plaintiffs (and their attorneys) and any third parties 

relating to the allegations of the case, the request is worded much more broadly and in no way 

limits the documents sought to the named Plaintiffs’ communications. However, 

communications of the named Plaintiffs relating to the allegations in the Complaint are 

relevant and discoverable. Accordingly, to the extent such communications are in the 

possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs, and have not previously been produced, they shall 

be produced. Defendant has not cited any authority for requiring the production of 

communications from Plaintiffs’ counsel to third parties regarding the allegations in this 

lawsuit. Plaintiffs need not respond with respect to communications by counsel. 

Request for the Production of Documents No. 12 – Seeks all communications on 

any social network site relating to the allegations in the complaint. The request does not 

specify from whom the documents are sought, but Wal-Mart has proposed that Plaintiffs 

produce responsive documents from the named Plaintiffs, women on the supplemental 

disclosures, and any women whose EEOC charges were produced. Plaintiffs object as 

overbroad, burdensome, and on privacy grounds. Given that the proposed class has not yet 

been certified, Plaintiffs shall produce responsive documents in their possession, custody or 

control for the named Plaintiffs. If the documents are not in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody or 

control, they are not required, for this request or any other request, to provide the names and 

contact information for the individuals who might have possession, custody or control.

Request for the Production of Documents No. 13 – Seeks all documents relating to 

the over 12,000 class members who have contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel as described in the 

Declaration of Brad Seligman filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Tolling of the 

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 6 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Statue of Limitations. Defendant contends that it is entitled to discover these documents 

because they would likely demonstrate the wide differences in the experiences of the putative 

class members. Plaintiffs object that the discovery intrudes on issues protected by attorney 

client and work produce privileges. Plaintiffs’ objection is well-founded – this request is so 

broad as to cover interview notes and witness summaries drafted by counsel which would 

clearly be subject to attorney work product protection. See S.E.C. v. Roberts, 254 F.R.D. 371, 

375 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“There is no dispute that the interview notes in question here are 

classic attorney work product—they comprise handwritten notes that include the attorney’s

mental impressions, conclusions and opinions”). Plaintiffs are not required to respond to this 

request.

Request for the Production of Documents No. 16 – Seeks all documents relating to 

any contacts, charges or communications with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission or corresponding state or local agency for the named Plaintiffs and any 

WITNESS (as that term was used the preceding requests). Plaintiffs shall provide responsive 

non-privileged documents that have not previously been produced for the named Plaintiffs, 

the individuals listed in Plaintiffs’ supplemental disclosures, any class certification declarants, 

and the individuals for whom Plaintiffs previously produced EEOC charges. 

Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 21, 25, 28, and 29 – Seeks

documents relating to particular allegations in the FAC or related pleadings. To the extent 

Plaintiffs have possession, custody or control of previously unproduced responsive 

documents, they shall produce them. 

Request for the Production of Documents No. 23 – Plaintiffs shall produce 

responsive documents in connection with the exchange of expert reports.

Request for the Production of Documents Nos. 30 and 35 – Seek documents 

supporting Plaintiffs’ claim that class certification is appropriate in this case. Pursuant to 

Rule 26 Plaintiffs have an on-going obligation to disclose those documents that they contend

support their claims and defenses. They are not required, however, to identify which 

documents support their class certification request prior to filing their motion for class 

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 7 of 9
8

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

certification, nor are they obligated to identify by bates-stamp number which of Wal-Mart’s 

own documents Plaintiffs believe are responsive except as ordered in response to 

Interrogatory No. 15 above.

Request for the Production of Documents No. 31 – Seeks all notes, calendars, 

correspondence, diaries or notations, writings or recordings of any type relating to the alleged 

wrongful acts by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s last best offer apparently limited this to documents 

reflecting complaints by certain categories of individuals. To the extent it seeks complaints, 

as stated above, Plaintiffs are required to produce documents, which would include 

complaints, responsive to Request Nos. 17-20, 22, and 33, from the named Plaintiffs, 

individuals listed in Plaintiffs’ supplemental disclosures, declarants, and the EEOC claimants 

whose EEOC charges Plaintiffs produced.

Request for the Production of Documents No. 32 – Wal-Mart’s position is that this 

request seeks video or audio records containing remarks, conversations or speeches by WalMart representatives. To the extent Plaintiffs have responsive recordings of Wal-Mart 

representatives, Plaintiffs shall produce them.

Request for the Production of Documents No. 34 – Seeks all documents regarding 

the willingness of the named Plaintiffs and any WITNESS (as that term was used the 

preceding requests) to relocate while employed at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart contends that these 

documents are relevant based on allegations in the FAC which relate to two of the named 

Plaintiffs’ experiences with relocation and a generalized allegation regarding Wal-Mart’s 

relocation policy. Plaintiffs shall provide responsive documents for the named Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs shall provide the discovery referenced herein by April 11, 2013. By April 

11, 2013, Plaintiffs shall also produce a privilege log of any withheld communications, 

although the log need not include communications between the named Plaintiffs and their 

present or former attorneys of record in this action. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 866.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 8 of 9
9

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

Dated: March 19, 2013

_________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 877 Filed 03/19/13 Page 9 of 9