Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

SHAON ROBINSON, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 10/23/17 JOINT 

LETTER RE: REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 139 & 140

On October 23, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Plaintiffs’ first set of 

requests for production of documents. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 139.) Specifically, the letter pertains 

to Request Nos. 45, 46, 55, and 55 to the extent that they seek email communications pertaining to 

meal and rest periods and overtime claims. Id. On August 16, 2017, Plaintiffs deposed 

Defendants’ 30(b)(6) witness, Carlos Rivera, who testified that emails discussing overtime and 

meal and rest breaks existed. (Joint Letter at 1.) Now, Plaintiffs seek to compel responsive emails. 

Id. at 2.

The Court notes that the parties previously filed a joint letter regarding this same discovery 

device on January 3, 2017, but these requests were not at issue when that letter was filed. (Joint 

Letter at 3.) As a result, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs waived their right to bring this joint 

letter. Id. While it appears that emails were discussed generally in November 2016, Mr. Rivera’s 

deposition was taken in August 2017, where the emails were discussed in more detail. As such, 

nothing precludes Plaintiffs from seeking emails regarding topics covered in the deposition. 

Moreover, the Court notes that electronically-stored information (“ESI”) may warrant phased 

discovery.

During the meet and confer process, Plaintiffs agreed to certain search terms—including 

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 145 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 3
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

“meal,” “meals,” “lunch,” “lunches,” “rest,” and “break”—and to limit the search to or from 

Defendants’ California employees and emails to or from Defendants’ employees who are 

responsible for wage and hour compliance in California even if they are not physically located in 

California. Id. Defendants have agreed to produce responsive emails on the condition that the 

parties agree upon a list of custodians and a list of “reasonable/manageable search terms.” (Joint 

Letter at 4.) Defendants ask that the search terms be limited to emails that also contain the term 

“driver” and at least one of the following: “policy,” “procedure,” or “practice.” Id. While the use 

of the term “driver” is likely reasonable, the inclusion of one of the other three terms is 

unreasonably restrictive, particularly given that Defendants have not attempted to perform any 

searches using Plaintiffs’ terms, such that the undersigned is unable to assess how difficult a 

search would be to perform based on Plaintiffs’ proposed parameters.

Even so, Defendants’ proposal of identifying custodians is reasonable and necessary to 

comport with Rule 26’s proportionality requirement. (See Joint Letter at 4.) The undersigned 

suspects that identifying and agreeing upon custodians, including Mr. Rivera, and then utilizing

Boolean searches—including truncated terms such as “meal” and “lunch”— would result in 

identifying those ESI documents most likely to be relevant to the pending litigation. Swanson v. 

ALZA Corp., No. 12-cv-04579-PJH-KAW, 2013 WL 5538908, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2013) 

(citing POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2009 WL 7047720, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 

2009)). 

Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding how to best conduct the 

discovery of electronically-stored information, and are directed to the Northern District’s 

Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. To the extent that the parties 

require technical expertise, they are directed to Guideline 2.05, and should consider involving “EDiscovery Liaisons” to assist with formulating a proper search.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 145 Filed 11/13/17 Page 2 of 3
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

In the event that the parties’ meet and confer efforts fail to fully resolve this dispute, they 

shall file a joint letter not to exceed five pages, which shall include their respective ESI discovery 

proposals and the relevant legal authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 145 Filed 11/13/17 Page 3 of 3