Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

*E-FILED 12/18/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAULO ARANDA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

NTH TELECOM, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-04738 JW (RS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 15, 2007, the Court heard four separate discovery motions that, as noted in the

order issued the same day, all arose from a dispute as to whether defendant Nth Telecom, Inc.

(“NTI”) had produced all “payroll records” related to plaintiff Paulo Aranda. Plaintiff Aranda has

now filed an additional motion to compel, contending that NTI has still failed to produce all of those

“payroll records.” Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b), the Court finds this matter suitable for

disposition without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 83 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Although the notice set the hearing for December 19, 2007, the docket entry indicated it

would be heard on January 2, 2008. Thus, although it appears that plaintiff may have noticed the

motion for the 29th instead of the 19th merely by a one-digit typographical error, plaintiff’s original

intent is far from certain.

2

 The Court does not suggest that an amended notice will always relate back to an original

notice to make a motion timely. Any number of circumstances can be envisioned that would

warrant a different result. The conclusion of this order is based on, and limited to, the specific facts

of this record.

2

II. DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness of motion

Aranda originally filed this motion on October 31, 2007, purporting to notice it for hearing

on December 29, 2007, a Saturday.1

 One week later, apparently after having been advised by NTI

that the notice was defective, Aranda re-noticed the motion for December 19, 2007, a Wednesday on

which the Court hears law and motion matters.

NTI thereafter moved to have the motion taken off-calendar, based on the improper notice

and on an alleged failure to engage in adequate meet and confer negotiations. The Court denied that

motion, finding that the motion to compel had been re-noticed with the requisite 35 days notice and

that NTI had not been prejudiced by the earlier incorrect notice. NTI now argues that the amended

notice was filed more than seven court days after the discovery cut-off in this action and that the

motion is therefore time-barred under Civil Local Rule 26-2.

Generally, the Court strictly enforces Rule 26-2 and will deny untimely motions to compel

without considering the merits thereof. Under the particular circumstances here, however, the Court

finds that the motion was timely filed on October 31, 2007; that Aranda was entitled to amend his

notice of motion to correct what was obviously a mistake in the date of the hearing; and that the

amended notice related back to the date of the original notice.2

B. Further production

Aranda has not met his burden to show that NTI possesses, but has failed to produce, any

further documents responsive to his requests In arguing the contrary, Aranda points to various

portions of the deposition testimony of NTI’s “payroll supervisor,” Danielle Chen, in which she

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 83 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

 Again, even though the record is not entirely clear, it appears that Silva created the

document produced by NTI in response to the Court’s prior order by “cutting and pasting” from files

that included information regarding other NTI employees. Aranda seems to be arguing that it was

somehow improper for NTI to “create” that document “for purpose of this litigation.” The Court’s

order of August 15, 2007, however, expressly reflected NTI’s offer that a responsive document

might be “generated” – i.e that responsive documents did not then exist but be created though postlitigation access to computer information. Additionally, the August 15, 2007, order expressly

limited Aranda’s efforts to obtain information regarding other employees. Thus, Aranda’s apparent

complaint that NTI produced information from its electronic database only pertaining to Aranda is

without merit.

3

described the procedures by which NTI processed payroll and the computer files involved in that

process. Although Aranda has failed to establish the record with any clarity, it appears most likely

that:

1. NTI at one point in time had, and most likely still has, any number of electronic data files

in the format of Excel spreadsheets that include information that arguably could be characterized as

pertaining to “payroll”; 

2. At the time of the prior motion to compel, NTI offered to produce data from those Excel

files that related specifically to Aranda, but NTI did not concede that any of Aranda’s then-existing

discovery requests actually called for such information;

 3. In response to the Court’s order that adopted and enforced NTI’s offer to produce such

information (without ruling as to whether such information was within the scope of any written

request), NTI produced a document that included all “payroll” information in its Excel files that

specifically related to plaintiff Aranda.3

 

To the extent that Aranda is now suggesting that NTI should be required to produce all of its

electronic Excel data files, he has not established that such wholesale production is warranted. 

Aranda was entitled to production of his own “payroll records” but he has not shown that NTI has

failed to produce any documents that are responsive to his requests. Accordingly, Aranda’s motion

to compel is denied.

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 83 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS

C 06-04738 JW (RS)

4

III. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth above, Aranda’s motion to compel is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 83 Filed 12/18/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS

C 06-04738 JW (RS)

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Grant Andrew Carlson gcarlson@go4law.com, sgoetz@go4law.com

Adam Wang aqwang@dalbonandwang.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 12/1/8/07 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 83 Filed 12/18/07 Page 5 of 5