Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONEL HARPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-0902-WBS-DMC

ORDER

Plaintiffs Lionel Harper and Daniel Sinclair, who are proceeding with retained 

counsel, bring this civil action pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), 

California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. Plaintiffs allege violations of California statutory law with 

respect to the failure to pay certain wages. The matter proceeds in this Court based on diversity 

jurisdiction. Pending before the Court are separate discovery motions filed by Plaintiffs. See

ECF Nos. 117 (Plaintiffs’ motion to compel) and 118 (Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions). 

The parties appeared before the undersigned for a hearing in Redding, California, 

on April 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Jamin Soderstrom, Esq., appeared telephonically for Plaintiffs. 

Kathryn McGuigan, Esq., and Zachary Shine, Esq., appeared telephonically for Defendant 

Charter Communications, LLC.

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 26
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

2

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations

This action currently proceeds on Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint against 

Defendants Charter Communications, LLC, and Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter). See

ECF No. 45. Plaintiffs allege the following background facts:

8. Charter markets and sells various services, including 

television, Internet, and phone services, in California and nationwide.

9. Plaintiffs worked for Charter in California as salespersons. 

Harper worked for Charter from September 2017 to March 2018, and 

Sinclair worked for Charter from January 2015 to December 2016. Charter 

considered Plaintiffs to be “outside salespersons” during their entire 

employment and treated them as exempt employees. But Plaintiffs were not 

exempt outside salespersons. Plaintiffs were not asked or required to perform 

any “outside sales” activities during their training and they were thus 

misclassified as exempt during their training. Plaintiffs also were assigned 

numerous duties following their training that were not “outside sales” duties, 

the performance of which caused them not to spend a majority of their 

working hours each day or week performing outside sales. These non-outside 

sales duties included, but were not limited to, customer service and 

installation scheduling activities and work performed at Charter’s offices or 

at a home office. They were thus misclassified as exempt following their 

training as well. During their employment, Plaintiffs worked with numerous 

other employees who were subject to Charter’s same policies and practices 

and who were also misclassified as exempt outside salespersons, both during 

training and following training. Plaintiffs’ working experience gave them a 

thorough understanding of Charter’s employment policies and practices with 

respect to employees who Charter classified as exempt outside salespersons.

10. During their employment, Plaintiffs and other employees 

(including but not limited to outside salespersons) were also eligible to 

receive and did receive incentive compensation in the form of commission 

wages. But Charter’s commission payment practices and policies were 

unlawful. First, Charter did not give to Plaintiffs and other employees a 

signed copy of commission agreements that set forth the methods by which 

their commission wages would be computed and paid. Second, Charter did 

not obtain from Plaintiffs and other employees a signed receipt for any such 

agreements. Third, Charter failed to properly calculate and pay all 

commission wages that were due to Plaintiffs and other employees. And 

fourth, Charter paid commission wages on a monthly basis and/or weeks 

after the wages were earned instead of for the pay period in which they were 

earned.

11. Plaintiffs personally experienced and witnessed Charter 

engaging in these unlawful and unfair business practices and Charter 

continues to engage in these unlawful and unfair business practices to this 

day.

Id. at 3-4.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 26
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

Plaintiffs state they are bringing the action on behalf of themselves and “on behalf 

of two classes and various subclasses of employees who worked for Charter in California at any 

time between November 19, 2014, through final judgment. . . .” ECF No. 45, pg. 4. The alleged 

classes and subclasses are as follows:

Outside Salesperson Class

Unpaid Minimum Wages Subclass

Unpaid Overtime Wages Subclass

Meal Period Subclass

Rest Break Subclass

Wage Statement Subclass

Termination Subclass

Commission Class

Underpaid Commission Subclass

No Signed Agreement Subclass

Wage Statement Subclass

Termination Subclass

Id. at 4-6.

In support of the class allegations, Plaintiffs also allege the following common 

questions of law and fact:

a. whether Charter improperly classified Plaintiffs and other outside 

salespersons as exempt during training;

b. whether Charter improperly classified Plaintiffs and other outside 

salespersons as exempt after training;

c. whether Charter accurately kept track of Plaintiffs’ and other outside

salespersons’ working hours;

d. whether Charter paid minimum wages for all hours worked by Plaintiffs 

and other outside salespersons;

e. whether Charter paid overtime wages for all hours worked over 8 in a 

workday and 40 in a workweek by Plaintiffs and other outside 

salespersons;

f. whether Charter provided Plaintiffs and other outside salespersons with 

timely, uninterrupted, off-duty 30-minute meal periods each day they 

worked at least 5 hours in a workday, and a second meal period each day 

they worked at least 10 hours in a workday, or paid them an additional 

hour of pay at their regular rate on each day such meal periods were not 

provided;

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 26
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

4

g. whether Charter provided Plaintiffs and other outside salespersons with 

timely, uninterrupted, off-duty 10-minute rest breaks for every 4 hours of 

work, or major fraction thereof, or paid them an additional hour of pay at 

their regular rate on each day such rest periods were not provided;

h. whether Charter paid Plaintiffs and other outside salespersons all wages 

due upon termination, or paid waiting time penalties when such wages 

were not timely paid;

i. whether Plaintiffs and other employees who were eligible to be paid 

commission wages signed a written commission agreement, were given a 

signed copy of the agreement, and provided Charter with a signed 

receipt;

j. whether Plaintiffs and other employees who were eligible to be paid 

commission wages had wages underpaid, reduced, deducted, or clawed 

back based on terms they did not expressly agree to in a signed writing 

that was given to them;

k. whether Charter timely paid all commission wages in the pay periods in 

which they were earned; and

l. whether Charter paid Plaintiffs and other employees who were eligible 

for commission wages all wages due upon termination, or paid waiting 

time penalties when such wages were not timely paid.

ECF No. 45, pgs. 6-7.

B. Procedural History

The operative first amended complaint was filed on December 13, 2019. See ECF 

No. 45. On January 10, 2020, Charter moved to dismiss and/or strike the first amended 

complaint. See ECF No. 48. The matter was heard by the District Judge on February 24, 2020, 

who issued a decision on February 26, 2020, granting Charter’s motion as to Plaintiffs’ claim for 

injunctive and declaratory relief and in all other respects denied the motion. See ECF Nos. 55 

(hearing minutes) and 56 (order). Relevant to the current discovery disputed, the District Judge 

ruled: “[T]he court will deny defendant’s motion to strike the class allegations to allow discovery 

to proceed.” ECF No. 56, pg. 12. 

The case is currently governed by a modified scheduling order issued, pursuant to 

the parties’ stipulation, by the District Judge on February 2, 2021. See ECF No. 104. Pursuant to 

the current scheduling order, discovery closes on August 30, 2021. See id. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 26
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

5

While Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, the District Judge 

vacated the hearing on that motion pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ motion to further modify the 

schedule and for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is set to be heard on June 1, 

2021. See ECF No. 127 (DJ order). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Charter to provide further responses to 

interrogatory nos. 2, 3, and 5, and requests for production nos. 1, 16, 30, 35, 36, 37, 50, 51, 52, 

and 53. See ECF No. 117, pgs. 2-6 (Plaintiffs’ notice of motion). 

The purpose of discovery is to "remove surprise from trial preparation so the 

parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute." United States v. 

Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 

26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery 

permitted:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information that 

is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 

the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, 

the parties' resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of 

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within 

this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a party seeking discovery 

may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection." Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an "evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). "District courts have 'broad 

discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16.'" Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. 

Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 of 26
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

6

The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which 

discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are 

disputed, (3) why the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not 

justified, and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 

this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75435, 2016 

WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24418, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

"Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly." Garneau v. City of

Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). "The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden 

of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, 

the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, 

and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections." Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 

07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42339, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 

2009) (internal citation omitted).

1. Interrogatories

At issue are Charter’s supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 

and 5. These interrogatories were the subject of prior motions to compel and the Court’s October 

21, 2020, order granting those motions. See ECF No. 87. In the prior motions, Plaintiffs argued 

they are entitled statewide discovery prior to class certification. The Court agreed, overruled 

Charter’s boilerplate objections, and directed Charter to serve supplemental responses by 

November 2, 2020. See id. 

Charter served unverified supplemental responses to interrogatory nos. 2, 3, and 5 

on November 2, 2020. See ECF No. 125-2, pgs. 1-11 (Exhibit 1 to Soderstrom declaration). 

Charter provided a verification on February 11, 2021. See ECF No. 125-1, pg. 2 (Soderstrom 

declaration). On March 8, 2021, Charter provided Plaintiffs a spreadsheet showing position 

histories for putative class members hired in or before October 2020. See id. Charter served a 

verified further supplemental response to interrogatory no. 5 on February 19, 2021. See ECF No. 

125-2, pgs. 12-24 (Exhibit 2 to Soderstrom declaration). 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 of 26
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

7

a. Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3

In interrogatory no. 2, Plaintiffs ask Charter to:

Identify the CONTACT INFORMATION and POSITION HISTORY 

for each DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEE.

ECF No. 125-2, pg. 5 (Exhibit 1 to Soderstrom declaration).

In interrogatory no. 3, Plaintiffs seek the same information for Charter’s commission employees. 

See id. at 7. In the November 2, 2020, supplemental response to interrogatory no. 2, Charter 

stated:

Subject to and without waving [sic] the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota’s October 

21, 2020, Order (Dkt. 87), Charter will produce a list of all persons employed 

by Charter in California between November 19, 2014, and the present who 

Charter classified as exempt under the outside salesperson exemption. 

Id. at 6.

Similarly, Charter provided the following supplemental response to interrogatory no. 3:

Subject to and without waving [sic] the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota’s October 

21, 2020, Order (Dkt. 87), Charter will produce a list of all persons employed 

by Charter in California between November 19, 2014, and the present who 

were eligible to earn commissions. 

Id. at 8.

In the instant motion to compel, Plaintiffs contend:

Charter made its supplemental response “subject to and without 

waiving” its objections. But the Court overruled Charter’s objections and 

ordered Charter to serve verified supplemental responses by November 2, 

2020. Charter violated the Court’s order by serving unverified supplemental 

responses on November 2, 2020 any by not serving a Class List until 

December 10, 2020. But the list did not include each putative class member’s 

“position history” (which lets Plaintiff identify the dates and pay periods 

each putative class member held a covered position). Based on the February 

17 Stipulation, Charter finally produced an updated Class List with position 

histories on March 8, 2021, but it failed to update the Class List to include 

recently hired putative class members as the February 17 Stipulation 

required. Plaintiffs asked Charter to identify the spreadsheets it produced that 

contain updated class member information with recently hired putative class 

members as part of the meet and confer process. Charter still has not pointed 

Plaintiffs to such information even though it agreed to promptly meet and 

confer on such issues in the February 17 Stipulation.

The Court should overrule Charter’s objections again, order Charter 

to produce an updated Class List that includes recently hired putative class 

member[s] by no later than May 5, 2021. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of 26
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

8

* * *

Interrogatory 3 is substantially similar to Interrogatory 2 above, it 

simply focuses on Commission Employees. For the same reasons explained 

for Interrogatory 2 above, the Court should overrule Charter’s objections and 

order Charter to produce an updated Class List that includes recently hired 

putative class member[s] by no later than May 5, 2021. . . .

ECF No. 125, pgs. 15-16, 18 (Joint Statement, emphasis in original). 

Charter responds as follows:

Integratory No. 2 seeks a class list that includes position history for 

all 9,000+ employees. Plaintiffs agree Charter “produced an updated Class 

List with position histories on March 8, 2021.” Charter has fully and 

completed [sic] responded to this request. . . .

* * *

As with Interrogatory No. 2, Charter has already produced a class list 

with position history in response to this request. Charter asserts the same 

arguments regarding this interrogatory.

Id. at 16, 18.

Regarding Charter’s objections, Plaintiffs’ position is persuasive. Charter’s 

supplemental responses asserted seven boilerplate objections to all of the interrogatories as to 

which supplemental responses were provided. These objections were not asserted in the context 

of any particular interrogatory. In the October 21, 2020, order, the Court overruled Charter’s 

boilerplate objections because they violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(B). The 

Court stated: 

Rule 34(b)(2)(B) requires objections to state with specificity 

both the basis and reasons for an objection. . . . As to each specific discovery 

request, Charter simply “incorporates in full its General objections.” See e.g. 

ECF No. 62-3, pg. 57 (Charter’s response to Plaintiff 

Harper’s request for production no. 1). Notably, though Charter’s general 

objections to Plaintiff Harper’s requests for production cite constitutional 

privacy concerns, Charter does not specifically explain in response to each 

request how such concerns are implicated.

ECF No. 87, pg. 12. 

The Court overruled Charter’s boilerplate objections and directed Charter to “serve supplemental 

responses which contain objections which are specific to the interrogatory at issue and which 

explain why a particular objection is being made.” Id. 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 of 26
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

9

Charter’s supplemental responses to interrogatory nos. 2 and 3 similarly violate 

Rule 34(b)(2)(B). Moreover, to the extent Charter objects to a specific interrogatory, Charter’s 

supplemental responses fail to comply with the Court’s prior order. Once again, Charter’s 

objections will be overruled. The Court also orders that any objections are now waived. 

As to Charter’s supplemental responses to interrogatory nos. 2 and 3, Plaintiffs 

contend Charter has not provided updated information naming recently hired putative class 

members, contrary to the parties’ stipulation of February 17, 2021. The stipulation has been filed 

at ECF No. 112. Relative to a list of putative class members responsive to interrogatory nos. 2 

and 3, the parties agreed: “Charter agrees to produce an updated Class List on or before March 8, 

2021, that identifies any ‘Direct Sales Employees’ and ‘Commission Employees’ in California 

who were hired since December 10, 2020, and that includes a complete ‘position history’ for each 

putative class member.” Id. at 4. As Plaintiffs concede in the joint statement, Charter provided 

the agreed list on the agreed date.

Plaintiffs’ counsel states in support of the instant motion that “Charter sent an 

updated spreadsheet showing position histories for class members hired in or before October 

2020, but Charter still has not identified recently hired putative class members. . . .” ECF No. 

125-1, pg. 2 (Soderstrom declaration). Counsel has not, however, attached the list provided by 

Charter on March 8, 2021. It is, therefore, impossible to evaluate Plaintiffs’ assertion that the list 

fails to comply with the parties’ stipulation. Moreover, Plaintiffs never define the phrase 

“recently hired” and the phrase does not appear in the relevant portion of the parties’ 

stipulation. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ argument that Charter violated the parties’ stipulation is 

unpersuasive. 

Nonetheless, the Court finds that Charter has continued to fail to adequately 

respond to interrogatory nos. 2 and 3 as directed by the Court following the prior discovery 

motions. The Court overruled Charter’s boilerplate objections and directed Charter to provide 

supplemental responses by November 2, 2020. While Charter served supplemental responses by 

the court-ordered deadline, Charter’s supplemental responses did not answer interrogatory nos. 2 

or 3. Instead, Charter said that it “will provide a list” at some unspecified time in the future, 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 26
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

10

contrary to the Court’s order that responsive information be provided by November 2, 2020. 

Moreover, as discussed at the outset, Charter has continued to assert improper boilerplate 

objections.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted as to interrogatory nos. 2 and 3. 

Charter’s objections are deemed waived, and Charter will be directed to provide responsive 

information consistent with the parties’ February 17, 2021, stipulation. Specifically, Charter will 

be directed to produce an updated Class List, as that phrase is used in the parties’ agreement, that 

identifies any “Direct Sales Employees” and “Commission Employees” in California who were 

hired since December 10, 2020.

b. Interrogatory No. 5

In interrogatory no. 5, Plaintiffs ask Charter to:

IDENTIFY each DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEE and COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEE who opted out of any version of arbitration agreement YOU 

have used.

ECF No. 125-2, pg. 16 (Exhibit 2 to Soderstrom declaration).

Charter served the following supplemental response on November 2, 2020:

Subject to and without waving [sic] the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: Information about which employees within the putative 

Outside Salesperson Class and putative Commissions Class are bound by 

arbitration agreement will be included on the class list which will be 

produced in accordance with Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota’s October 21, 

2020, Order (Dkt. 87).

Id. at 17.

On February 19, 2021, Charter served the following further supplemental response:

Subject to and without waving [sic] the foregoing objections, Charter 

responds as follows: With this response, Charter is producing a supplemental 

version of the class list identifying which employees within the putative 

Outside Salesperson Class and putative Commissions Class are bound by 

arbitration agreements. 

Id. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 10 of 26
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

11

In the pending motion to compel, Plaintiffs argue:

Charter made its supplemental and further supplemental responses 

“subject to and without waiving” its objections. But the Court overruled 

Charter’s objections and ordered Charter to serve verified supplemental 

responses by November 2, 2020. Charter violated the Court’s order by 

serving unverified supplemental responses on November 2, 2020. Charter 

still has not identified the putative class members who opted out of 

arbitration over five-and-a-half months after its objections were overruled 

and it was ordered to provide such information. Even in its untimely further 

supplemental response served February 19, 2021, Charter stood by the same 

objections the Court overruled and said it would identify other information 

(i.e., whether Charter believes a class member is bound by an arbitration

agreement and class action waiver) that is not responsive to Interrogatory 5. 

Charter did not agree to provide this information until after Plaintiffs filed 

this motion, and even now Charter has not prioritized its efforts to provide 

this court-ordered information. Charter says it “repeatedly” advised Plaintiffs 

of its position, but a quick review of the meet and confer correspondence 

shows that is not true.

The Court should overrule Charter’s objections again, order Charter 

to identify all putative class members who opted out of any version of 

arbitration agreement by no later than May 5, 2021. . . .

ECF No. 125, pgs. 20-21 (Joint Statement). 

According to Charter:

As Charter has repeatedly informed Plaintiffs, Charter is in the 

process of locating and producing this final piece of information related to 

“out outs.” As Charter has told Plaintiffs through multiple meet and confers, 

the information sought by this request is not centrally located and the broad 

classes as defined by Plaintiffs require Defendant to search records in 

numerous business units, across different reporting structures, and in several 

different systems. Charter continues to work diligently to comply with this 

request and will have this information to Plaintiffs before the Court hears this 

motion, thus mooting this request. 

Id. at 21.

Plaintiffs’ position is persuasive. As discussed above, the Court ordered Charter to 

respond to interrogatory no. 5 by November 2, 2020. And again, neither of Charter’s 

supplemental responses answer the interrogatory. “Will be produced” and “is producing” are 

non-responsive, particularly given Charter’s admission in the joint statement that interrogatory 

no. 5 still has not been answered despite the Court’s prior order. Moreover, again violating the 

Court’s prior order, Charter continues to assert improper boilerplate objections. Finally, as to 

Charter’s complaint regarding the volume of records which must be searched, that objection is not 

well-taken. If Charter had been experiencing difficulty complying with the Court’s November 2, 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 of 26
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

12

2020, deadline, the time to have brought the issue to the Court attention would have been before

that deadline, not after in the context of a subsequent motion to compel months later. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted as to interrogatory no. 5. Charter’s 

objections are deemed waived and Charter will be ordered to provide responsive information.

2. Requests for Production

At issue are Charter’s responses to Plaintiff’s request for production nos. 1, 16, 30, 

35, 36, 37, 50, 51, 52, and 53. Request for production nos. 16 and 30 were the subject of the prior 

motions to compel and the Court’s October 21, 2020, order. See ECF No. 87. The Court granted 

the prior motions, overruled Charter’s improperly asserted objections, and directed Charter to 

serve supplemental responses and produce documents by November 2, 2020. See id. Charter 

served supplemental responses to request for production nos. 16 and 30 on November 2, 2020. 

See ECF No. 125-2, pgs. 32-42 (Exhibit 4 to Soderstrom declaration). 

a. Request for Production No. 1

In request for production no. 1, Plaintiffs seek:

Each DOCUMENT that HARPER signed or acknowledged, whether 

physically, electronically, or otherwise, related to his employment with 

YOU. 

Id. at 28.

In Charter’s initial response, Charter informed Plaintiffs that Plaintiff Harper’s 

personnel file would be produced. See id. at 29. Charter served an amended/supplemental 

response on February 28, 2020. See id. at 30. In this further response, Charter stated that various 

policy handbooks would also be produced. See id. In both the initial and amended responses, 

Charter raised a number of general boilerplate objections to all of Plaintiff Harper’s document 

requests. See id. at 27-28. Charter also raised the following objections specific to request for 

production no. 1:

. . . Charter objects that the terms and/or phrases “acknowledged” and 

“related to his employment” are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and 

unintelligible. Charter further objects to this Request on the ground that it 

fails to state with reasonable particularity the documents sought. Charter 

further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome 

and oppressive and seeks information not relevant to the case and not 

proportional to the needs of the case, including that the burden or expense of 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 26
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

13

the proposed discovery outweighs any putative benefit. . . .

Id. at 28-29.

According to Plaintiffs:

Charter’s general and generic objections should be overruled. Charter 

has produced some documents that Harper signed or acknowledged (such as 

some of the documents listed in his onboarding details). But Charter is still 

refusing to produce the actual native documents/ESI that allegedly show 

Harper electronically signed a commission agreement in September 2017 via 

its online Synygy commissions portal. See, e.g., Dkt. 94 ¶¶ 20-23 (Charter 

witness purporting to describe ESI data); Dkt. 111 at 26 (order denying 

Charter’s MSJ and observing Charter still has not produced documentation 

substantiating what it alleges constitute electronic signatures and commission 

plan receipts). The Federal Rules do not permit Charter to pick and choose 

what form it wants to produce documents or information in: they allow the 

requesting party to specify the form (in this case, Plaintiffs requested 

“native” form), and require the responding party to object to such 

specification and then satisfy its burden of showing why it should not be 

required to produce the documents/ESI in the requested form. Charter 

waived its objection to produce documents/ESI in “native” form by not 

asserting it in its responses, and cannot avoid such production now. 

Moreover, using an adverse witness without personal knowledge and who is 

not a custodian of records to provide “detailed information” in a declaration 

does not constitute producing a document/ESI in response to a written 

discovery request. And Charter’s designated witness (Brad Beck) confirmed 

he has seen formal “reports” exported from Synygy, Optymyze, and 

Callidus. If such reports were destroyed during the pendency of this action, 

that creates serious spoliation issues.

The Court should order Charter to promptly produce the actual native 

document/ESI (apparently a Synygy “report”) that contains Harper’s alleged 

acknowledgement and electronic signature, or preclude Charter from relying 

on such documents/ESI in its defense.

ECF No. 125, pg. 23 (joint statement).

Plaintiffs add:

. . . More than a year later [after Charter amended its original 

response], Charter still has not produced the actual report/record that charter 

allegedly captured from the “Synygy” commissions portal in September 

2017 related to Harper’s commission agreement. Charter says the native data 

in the report/record represents Harper’s electronic signature. Charter has 

tried to rely on the alleged data in its defense, but it still has not produced 

any actual, native record or report showing such data or the manner in which 

it was captured and maintained. 

ECF No. 125-1, pg. 2 (Soderstrom declaration).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 13 of 26
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

14

Charter responds:

Fed. Rules Civil Proc. 34 requires parties to produce documents “as 

they are kept in the usual course of business,” and that “A party need not 

produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” 

Charter already produced detailed information about Harper’s 

acknowledgment of receipt of his commission plan (showing he 

acknowledged receipt at 2:36 p.m. on 9/29/17). Charter has also produced a 

highly detailed explanation of the Synygy acknowledgment process. As 

explained numerous times to Plaintiffs, Defendant no longer uses the Synygy 

portal and cannot access it to obtain a “report” or whatever “documents” 

Plaintiffs seems to believe exist. Defendant produced the information as 

maintained and provided to it by its vendor. Plaintiffs may be dissatisfied 

with this format, but Defendant is not obligated to, nor is it able to, produce 

the information in some other formal Plaintiffs’ counsel speculates exists.

ECF No. 125, pgs. 23-24 (joint statement).

As with requests for production no. 16, discussed below, Charter attempts to hide 

behind the fact that it no longer uses a certain computer program, or “portal,” to access and 

generate employee personnel data. Certainly, only Charter can access or request data maintained 

by a previous vendor or computer program. Charter is now required to produce every single 

document and or piece of data, whether electronic or in paper, relating to Plaintiff Harper’s 

employment with Charter, regardless of the vendor used to originally produce or store such data. 

b. Request for Production Nos. 16 and 30

In request for production nos. 16 and 30 – which were the subject of the prior 

motions to compel – Plaintiffs seek:

Each incentive compensation or commission statement or similar 

DOCUMENT that YOU provided to COMMISSION EMPLOYEES.

This request is seeking the records YOU give to COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEES showing when, how, and how much incentive compensation 

(e.g., commission or bonus) wages they have earned. 

* * *

Each DOCUMENT relating to training YOU conduct or have 

conducted for DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEES.

This request includes but is not limited to training materials, 

attendance records, class or lecture schedules, homework requirements or 

modules, and similar records, and also includes in-person, telephonic, online, 

or other forms of training YOU Provided to DIRECT SALES EMPLOYEES.

ECF No. 125-2, pgs. 35, 37-38 (Exhibit 4 to Soderstrom declaration). 

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 of 26
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

15

In Charter’s initial response, Charter stated that wage statements and commission 

statements for Plaintiff Harper would be produced. See id. at 36. Following the Court’s order 

granting Plaintiffs’ prior motions to compel as to request for productions nos. 16 and 30, Charter 

served supplemental responses on November 2, 2020. In the supplemental responses to both 

document requests, Charter provided the same statement: “Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Dennis 

M. Cota’s October 21, 2020, Order (Dkt. 87), Charter will produce a 10% sampling of documents 

within its possession, custody or control responsive to this request.” Id. at 36, 40. 

In the current motion to compel related to request for production nos. 16 and 30, 

Plaintiffs argue as follows regarding document request no. 16:

Charter made its supplemental response “subject to and without 

waiving” its objections. But the Court overruled Charter’s objections. 

Plaintiffs agreed in the February 17 Stipulation to accept a reduced 2% 

sampling, but Charter still has not produced all of the sampling documents. 

Charter unilaterally and improperly limited its production to one type of 

commission earnings statement and a single year (2020), even though its 

other productions show it keeps commission information in multiple forms 

and it has such information dating back to at least early 2015. Soderstrom 

Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 4. To the extent Charter is now claiming that it no longer has 

access to pre-2020 commission earnings statements or ESI, Charter never 

revealed this information before the evening this brief was filed (April 21, 

2021), and this raises serious spoliation issues as Callidus was not used until 

2020 and Charter had notice of the scope of this dispute by no later than 

September 2018. Charter’s claim that it “has explained this to Plaintiffs 

several times” is untrue. No meet and confer correspondence shows any such 

statement or explanation, and Charter has not discussed this position with 

Plaintiffs in any phone conference.

The Court should overrule Charter’s objections again, order Charter 

to produce all responsive records (including pre-2020 commission earnings 

statements) for the agreed 2% sampling by no later than May 5, 2021. . . .

ECF No. 125, pg. 25 (joint statement).

Charter responds:

Defendant has provided a verified response that all commission 

statements that exist for the 2% sampling Plaintiffs agreed to have been 

produced. Similar to Request for Production No. 1, this request seeks 

documents that do not exist, as Defendant no longer has access to or uses the 

prior programs that generated such records. As such, the only commission 

statements Charter has in its possession, custody or control responsive to this 

request, are from the Callidus program that has been in use since 2020.

Charter has already explained this to Plaintiffs several times. The fact that 

Plaintiffs are unsatisfied with this response and want Charter to essentially 

create “commission statements” that no longer exist is beyond the scope of 

what any discovery rules provide. Defendant is simply under no obligation to 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 15 of 26
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

16

do so. As Defendant has produced all responsive documents in its 

possession, custody or control, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

Id. at 26.

As to document request no. 30, Plaintiffs contend:

Charter made its supplemental response “subject to and without 

waiving” its objections. But the Court overruled Charter’s objections. 

Plaintiffs later agreed in the February 17 Stipulation to accept training 

materials associated with multi-day, one week, or multi-week training 

courses or “sessions.” But Charter still has not produced all of the nonsampling training materials. Charter’s corporate representative witness for 

training (Iba Dawson) confirmed at deposition that Charter has updated its

Account Executive training materials since 2017 (the last version Charter 

produced for the AE position), and she was unable to confirm whether the 

most recent versions for the Direct Sales Rep and Multi-Tenant Sales Rep 

positions are the 2019 versions (the last version Charter produced for the 

DSR and MTSR positions). Soderstrom Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 4. Plaintiffs can look 

at the training transcript report spreadsheet Charter produced and identify 

versions that were “retired” (the 2017 AE version) and see newer versions, 

and look at other training courses which appear to be new in 2020. To the 

extent Charter now claims such versions do not exist or have already been 

produced (and that representation is actually correct, which Plaintiffs highly 

doubt based on Ms. Dawson’s sworn testimony), that was the whole point of 

the February 17 Stipulation provision that required Charter to promptly meet 

and confer on issues raised by Plaintiffs.

The Court should overrule Charter’s objections again, order Charter 

to produce all responsive multi-day, one week, or multi-week training course 

or session materials by no later than May 5, 2021. . . .

Id. at 28-29.

Charter responds:

Defendant has produced all documents within its possession, custody 

or control responsive to this request. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs now seek to 

compel materials which Defendant’s witness stated at deposition may or may 

not be the same materials previously produced by Defendant. Plaintiffs’ 

request is based on nothing more than pure speculation. Charter cannot 

produce documents that are not in its possession, custody or control. As 

Defendant has correctly stated that all responsive materials have been

produced, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as it relates to this request.

Id. at 29.

As to both document requests, Plaintiffs add:

. . .Charter supplemented its original responses on November 2, 2020 

in connection with the Court’s Discovery Orders. Dkt. 87. But Charter failed 

to comply with the Court’s Discovery Orders, and Plaintiffs eventually 

stipulated to accept a reduced sampling and a narrower set of non-sampling 

training materials. Dkt. 112. Charter still has only produced a reduced 2% 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 16 of 26
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

17

sampling of a single type of commission earnings statement covering a single 

year (2020), even though the Court’s Discovery Orders and the February 17 

Stipulation were not limited to a single type of statement or a single year, and 

even though the Class Period extends from November 2014 to the present 

and the PAGA Period extends from September 2017 to the present. See Dkt. 

111 at 7-13 (discussing the applicable limitations periods). As shown in the 

meet and confer correspondence, Charter’s earlier document productions 

show that Charter maintains commission earnings statements/information 

dating back to at least January 2015, and it can collect and produce such 

statements/ information in multiple forms. See Exhibit 9 below. And even 

after Plaintiffs agreed to accept a more limited set of training materials 

associated with a multi-day, one week, or multi-week orientation or training 

course of “session,” Charter still has not produced the Account Executive 

training materials updated since 2017 (which its corporate representative 

designee Iba Dawson admitted exist), and still has not confirmed whether the 

2019 version of training materials for other covered positions is the 

current/most-recent version. Id. Charter remains in breach of the Court’s

Discovery Orders and the February 17 Stipulation.

ECF No. 125-1, pg. 3 (Soderstrom declaration). 

At the outset, the Court finds that Charter’s November 2, 2020, supplemental 

responses fail to comply with the Court’s prior discovery order. In granting Plaintiffs’ prior 

motions, the Court overruled Charter’s improperly asserted objections and directed Charter to 

produce responsive documents by November 2, 2020, on a rolling basis. In its supplemental 

responses, served on November 2, 2020, Charter stated it “will produce” a sampling of responsive 

documents. Again, “will produce” is not the same as “has produced,” which is what the Court 

ordered. 

With respect to request for production no. 16, Charter says it now can only 

produce documents from 2020 forward because “no longer has access to or uses the prior 

programs that generated such records” prior to that time period. This explanation seems patently 

obstructive. First, why didn’t Charter tell the Court about this issue at the October 2020 hearing 

on the prior motions? Second, if the Court were to accept Charter’s explanation, any large 

company could avoid potentially damaging discovery simply by constantly switching computer 

programs used to generate such discovery and say that it cannot produce the discovery because of 

the program change. 

It seems clear that responsive documents do in fact exist. Charter has not stated 

otherwise. Because Plaintiffs certainly have no ability to access responsive documents through 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 17 of 26
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

18

previously used software, Charter must do so. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted as to 

request for production no. 16. 

Regarding request for production no. 30, the Court rejects the notion that 

Plaintiffs’ position is based on pure speculation. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ position that Charter 

has not produced all training materials responsive to this request is based on the deposition 

testimony of Charter’s corporate representative, Iba Dawson. 

In the parties’ February 17, 2021, discovery stipulation, Charter agreed to provide: 

(1) “All commission statements for 180 randomly sampled employees in California comprised of 

94 ‘Direct Sales Employees’ and 86 ‘Commission Employees,’ ECF No. 112, pg. 2, ¶ 1(c); and 

(2) “All training material associated with a multi-day, one-week, or multi-week orientation or 

training ‘session’ that Charter used from November 19, 2014, through the date of production for 

each ‘Direct Sales Employee’ position,” id. at 4, ¶ 3(d). Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be 

granted as to request for production no. 30 and Charter will be directed to produce documents, 

without objection, consistent with the parties’ agreement. 

c. Request for Production Nos. 35, 36, and 37

These three requests for production of documents were served on November 4, 

2020. See ECF No. 125-1, pg. 3 (Soderstrom declaration). Charter responded on December 4, 

2020. See id. In request for production no. 35, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS related to YOU giving COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEES a copy of the commission plan electronically.

For avoidance of doubt, this requests seeks the records, information, 

and/or data related to the Synygy, PeopleSoft, or other program or system 

YOU used to give a copy of a commission plan to a COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEE electronically as described in YOUR supplemental response to 

Sinclair Interrogatory No. 12 dated November 2, 2020. 

ECF No. 125-2, pg. 45 (Exhibit 5 to Soderstrom declaration). 

In request for production no. 36, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS related to YOU obtaining from COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEES an electronic acknowledgement of receipt of a commission 

plan. 

For avoidance of doubt, this requests seeks the records, information, 

and/or data related to the Synygy, PeopleSoft, or other program or system 

YOU used to obtain from a COMMMISSION EMPLOYEE an electronic 

acknowledgement of receipt as described in YOUR supplemental response to 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 18 of 26
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

19

Sinclair Interrogatory No. 14 dated November 2, 2020.

Id. at 45-46.

As to both, Charter responded that it will produce responsive documents. See id. at 45, 46.

In request for production no. 37, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS constituting or reflecting a “signed receipt” for a 

commission plan that YOU obtained from a COMMISSION EMPLOYEE.

For avoidance of doubt, this request seeks any signed copy of the 

acknowledgement page in a commission plan that Charter stores in paper or 

electronic form in a COMMISSION EMPLOYEE’s personnel file or in 

another location. 

Id. at 46. 

In response, Charter stated that it has already produced “documents describing these programs.” 

Id. at 47. Charter also objected to the production of paper copies of signed acknowledgement 

pages as burdensome and oppressive because “it would require an individual examination of all 

physical files related to potentially thousands of employees in hundreds of different locations.” 

Id. 

As to these requests, Plaintiffs contend:

. . . Charter waived its objections by agreeing to “produce responsive 

documents within its possession, custody or control” for RFPs 35 and 36. 

But it failed to do so. In the February 17 Stipulation, Charter again agreed to 

produce “All commission plan ‘data’ (captured via Synygy, Optymyze, 

and/or Callidus)” for a 2% sampling by no later than March 8, 2021. 

Charter’s designated witness (Brad Beck) said he has seen reports exported

from Synygy, Optymyze, and Callidus. But instead of producing the actual 

“native” reports in its possession showing the actual data captured and 

maintained by Charter or its vendor, Charter or its counsel instead purported 

to collect and repackage the actual data into a spreadsheet created for 

purposes of this litigation. The documents/ESI Plaintiffs are seeking and 

Charter agreed to collect and produce represent the actual native data that 

shows whether a putative class member and aggrieved employee

electronically signed the relevant commission plan documents. Charter still 

has not produced any of the actual reports it obtained from its Synygy, 

Optymyze, and Callidus portals, and it is improperly trying to repackage the 

underlying information into a new form (e.g., Charter or counsel-created 

spreadsheet) instead of producing it in its original, native form so Plaintiffs 

can see what was actually captured. No sampling is needed for the electronic 

reports, and the Court should find Charter waived its request for a sampling 

by failing to comply with its response served on December 4, 2020 and with 

the February 17 Stipulation. With respect to RFP 37, Charter admitted on 

April 13, 2021 that it still has not collected the agreed sampling of all of the 

physically signed agreements/receipts that exist despite agreeing to do so by 

March 8, 2021. Plaintiffs remain willing to accept a sampling of physically 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 19 of 26
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

20

signed commission agreements or receipts that exist. Charter also has not 

produced all of the relevant Synygy, Optymyze, and Callidus training class 

materials or “guide” that it has used with putative class members. Charter’s

own training transcripts show the training classes it has used, but it has not 

produced and materials or guides for such classes. Charter has tried to rely on 

old versions of these guides in its defense, and can easily identify, collect, 

and produce a complete set of guides that were used during the class period.

ECF No. 125-1, pgs. 3-4 (Soderstrom declaration). 

As to all three documents requests, Charter responds:

Charter has produced both hard copies of signed commission plan 

acknowledgments and the electronic commission plan acknowledgments in 

the format maintained by Charter for nearly all of the individuals in the 

sampling agreed upon by Plaintiffs. As stated numerous times to Plaintiffs’ 

counsel, Charter is currently locating and producing the small handful of 

remaining documents/information. . . . Contrary to Plaintiffs’ speculative 

belief, the electronic acknowledgments have been produced in the format in 

which Charter maintains that information. Charter is under no obligation to 

recreate data in a manner that Plaintiffs prefer. Charter has also produced all 

of the Synygy, Optymyze and Callidus training guides in its possession, 

custody or control. Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied as to this request as 

well.

ECF No. 125, pgs. 31, 32, 34 (joint statement). 

In the February 17, 2021, discovery stipulation, Charter agreed to produce: “All 

commission plan ‘data’ (captured via Synygy, Optymyze, and/or Callidus) for 180 randomly 

sampled employees in California comprised of 94 ‘Direct Sales Employees’ and 86 ‘Commission 

Employees,’ ECF No. 112, pg. 3, ¶ 1(d). Charter admits that it has not complied with this 

agreement by stating that “nearly all” information has been produced. And Charter has not 

sufficiently explained why the “native” data cannot be produced. Charter will be ordered to live 

up to its end of the agreement and produce the documents and/or data responsive to these requests 

consistent with the parties’ agreement. Given the parties’ stipulation to produce documents over 

a limited sampling of 180 employees, Charter’s objection that collecting responsive data would 

be burdensome is overruled. 

d. Request for Production Nos. 50, 51, 52, and 53

These document requests were served on February 24, 2021, in response to 

Charter’s supplemental responses to Plaintiff Harper’s interrogatory nos. 5, 6, and 7, that identify 

certain putative class members Charter contends are bound by arbitration agreements. See ECF 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 20 of 26
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

21

No. 125-1, pg. 4 (Soderstrom declaration). Charter served responses on March 26, 2021. See id. 

In request for production no. 50, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer, or relate to a purported 

agreement to arbitrate between YOU and a DIRECT SALWS EMPLOYEE.

This request seeks, without limitation, each email, notice, 

acknowledgement, physically or electronically signed copy, data record, opt 

out, or other document that shows or suggests a DIRECT SALES 

EMPLOYEE had notice of and agree to or opted out of any version of an 

agreement to arbitrate (including but not limited to V1 effective 12/01/2014, 

V1 effective 12/16/2016, V2 effective 1/3/2017, V3 effective 10/6/2017, and 

Solution Channel).

ECF No. 125-2, pg. 51 (Exhibit 6 to Soderstrom declaration).

In request for production no. 51, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer, or relate to any purported 

waiver of bringing or participating in a class action by a DIRECT SALES 

EMPLOYEE.

Id. at 52.

In request for production no. 52, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer, or relate to a purported 

agreement to arbitrate between YOU and a COMMISSION EMPLOYEE. 

This request seeks, without limitation, each email, notice, 

acknowledgement, physically or electronically signed copy, data record, opt 

out, or other document that shows or suggests a COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEE had notice of and agree to or opted out of any version of an 

agreement to arbitrate (including but not limited to V1 effective 12/01/2014, 

V1 effective 12/16/2016, V2 effective 1/3/2017, V3 effective 10/6/2017, and 

Solution Channel).

Id. at 52-53. 

In request for production no. 53, Plaintiffs seek:

All DOCUMENTS that evidence, refer, or relate to any purported 

waiver of bringing or participating in a class action by a COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEE. 

Id. at 53. 

In its March 26, 2021, responses to these document requests, Charter provided the same response 

as follows subject to objections:

. . .Charter already produced a list of all putative class members that 

are bound by arbitration agreement (CHA/HAR 031916-031917) as well as 

copies of the responsive arbitration agreement (CHA/HAR 035997-036007).

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 21 of 26
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

22

Id. at 51, 52, 53, and 54.

In the current motion to compel, Plaintiffs contend that Charter refused to meet 

and confer on these document requests, instead standing on its position that it should not be 

required to produce responsive documents until after class certification is decided. See ECF No. 

125-1, pg. 4 (Soderstrom declaration). In the joint statement, Charter responds as follows for all 

four requests:

Charter supplemented the complete class list, which includes all 

putative class members, with detailed information showing who is bound by 

an arbitration agreement, and which arbitration agreement applies. Charter 

has also produced an exemplar of each arbitration agreement that 

applied/applies to each employee. Plaintiffs have made no showing as to why 

such information is inadequate, or any argument to defeat Defendant’s 

objections that producing arbitration agreements for over 9,000 employees is 

not burdensome or oppressive. To the extent Plaintiffs believe they will have 

grounds to object to the use of this data as evidence in support of a motion 

that has not yet been filed, Plaintiffs are free to file objections to evidence. 

But they may not obtain a ruling related to evidence in the guise of this 

motion to compel discovery. This is not the proper vehicle for such 

arguments.

ECF No. 125, pgs. 36, 37, 38, and 39 (joint statement). 

Plaintiffs’ seek through requests for production nos. 50-53 actual documents 

and/or electronic data. Charter’s offer of a putative list of class members is non-responsive. 

Similarly, an “exemplar” arbitration agreement does not respond to the requests. Charter’s 

current production of a list is non-responsive to the requests at issue. Plaintiffs’ motion will be 

granted as to request for production nos. 50, 51, 52, and 53. Charter will be directed to produce 

all data and/or documents upon which it may rely in asserting the existence of enforceable 

arbitration agreement. Such production shall be satisfied by a random 2% sampling (180 putative 

class members). 

B. Motion for Sanctions

In their motion for sanctions “and further discovery orders,” Plaintiffs seek an 

order imposing the following eight “sanctions” on Charter for violation of the Court’s October 21, 

2020, discovery order and the parties’ February 17, 2021, discovery stipulation:

Sanction 1 In opposing class certification, Charter be prohibited from 

referring to or relying on nay documents or information that 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 22 of 26
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

23

were responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests that were the 

subject of the discovery order and/or stipulation but were not 

produced or disclosed by March 8, 2021.

Sanction 2 In opposition class certification, Charter be prohibited from 

arguing or asking the Court to draw an inference that any 

documents or information that were responsive to Plaintiffs’ 

discovery requests that were the subject of the discovery order 

and/or stipulation but were not produced or disclosed by 

March 8, 2021, would weigh against one or more of Rule 23’s 

requirements.

Sanction 3 In opposing class certification, Charter be precluded from 

arguing that the non-sampling and sampling documents and 

information that it did produce by March 8, 2021, are not 

representative of the proposed classes and subclasses.

Sanction 4 In opposing class certification, Charter be prohibited from 

arguing that Rule 23’s requirements are not satisfied because 

certain putative class members allegedly agreed to arbitrate 

their claims and/or waived their right to participate in a class 

or representative action. 

Sanction 5 Charter be ordered to promptly collect and produce on a 

rolling basis the greater of (i) the 10% court-ordered sampling 

or (ii) a sampling percentage that Charter agrees is 

representative of the class and/or group of covered aggrieved 

employees in the event that class certification is granted 

and/or the Court rules that the representative PAGA claims 

can proceed. The sampling documents shall include: wage 

statements, offer letters, commission earning statements, 

commission plan acknowledgement “data,” physically signed 

commission plan documents, and training transcripts. 

Charter’s production shall conclude no later than 21 calendar 

days after the date of the Court’s class certification and/or 

PAGA order.

Sanction 6 Charter be ordered by May 10, 2021, to identify on a privilege 

log all communications with the representative who signed the 

verification (Jametra Shanks) that were related to Charter’s 

preparation, review, and approval of each supplemental 

interrogatory response served on November 2, 2020, February 

11, 2021, and February 19, 2021. 

/ / /

Sanction 7 Charter be ordered to respond substantively and in writing to 

Plaintiffs’ future discovery meet and confer correspondence 

within three court days.

Sanction 8 Charter be ordered to pay the reasonable expenses, including 

attorneys’ fees, incurred by Plaintiffs due to Charter’s failure 

to fully comply with the discovery order and/or discovery 

stipulation. 

ECF No. 118, pgs. 2-3. 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 23 of 26
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

24

In opposition Plaintiffs’ motion, Charter first argues the motion was improperly 

noticed under Eastern District of California Local Rule 251(e) on just 14 days’ notice. See ECF 

No. 126, pg. 5. Under Local Rule 251, discovery motions are generally proper on 21 days’ 

notice. See Local Rule 251(a). An exception to this rule is when “the only relief sought by the 

motion is the imposition of sanctions.” Local Rule 251(e) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiffs 

acknowledge that they do not seek only sanctions. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ motion is captioned: 

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions and Further Discovery Orders.” ECF No. 118, pg. 

1. Thus, it is clear Plaintiffs’ are not seeking only sanctions and, for this reason, Plaintiffs’ 

motion is not proper on the 14 days’ notice given. Plaintiffs’ non-compliance with the notice 

provisions of Local Rule 251 is a sufficient reason to deny Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and 

other relief without prejudice. 

Moreover at this juncture, the Court is not yet inclined to consider Plaintiffs’ 

requests as related to Sanctions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied without 

prejudice as to such sanctions requests. The Court will, however, impose appropriate monetary 

sanctions consistent with Sanction 8 requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be directed to 

file a declaration of costs and expenses associated with the current motions and Charter will be 

provided an opportunity to respond. 

III. CONCLUSION

Charter appears to be engaging in delaying tactics regarding, in particular, 

discovery associated with sampling of employee data which would support Plaintiffs’ motion 

for class certification. Following the hearing on the prior discovery motions, the Court ordered 

discovery be provided by November 2, 2020. Instead of providing discovery, Charter served 

supplemental responses on November 2, 2020, indicating that it will provide discovery at some 

unspecified time in the future. Nothing was provided by November 2, 2020. Plaintiffs could 

have immediately sought Rule 37 sanctions for Charter’s non-compliance but did not. Instead, 

Plaintiffs engaged in further meet-and-confer efforts culminating in the February 17, 2021, 

discovery agreement which reduced the sampling size from 10% to 2% and required discovery 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 24 of 26
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

25

be provided by March 8, 2021. As part of that agreement, and in a further sign of good faith, 

Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw a pending motion for Rule 37 sanctions. Charter failed to produce 

documents by the agreed date and this motion followed. The Court will now reduce the parties’ 

February 17, 2021, discovery stipulation to a formal order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ February 17, 2021, discovery stipulation, ECF No. 112, is 

adopted as the order of this Court, with the exception of the date by which discovery would be 

produced;

2. All discovery agreed to be provided by Charter in the February 17, 2021,

agreement and ordered below shall be produced no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight 

Time on May 10, 2021;

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ECF No. 117, is granted as outlined below;

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to interrogatory nos. 2 and 3;

Charter’s objections are waived; Charter is ordered to produce an updated Class List, as that 

phrase is used in the parties’ stipulation, that identifies any “Direct Sales Employees” and 

“Commission Employees” in California who were hired since December 10, 2020;

5. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to interrogatory no. 5; Charter’s 

objections are waived; Charter is ordered to provide responsive information;

6. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to request for production no. 1; 

Charter is ordered to produce all responsive documents and/or raw data, whether in electronic 

form or in paper, regardless of the vendor or program used to prepare or store such information, 

related to Plaintiff Harper’s employment with Charter;

7. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to request for production nos. 16 

and 30; Charter is ordered to produce all documents responsive to these requests, consistent with 

the parties’ discovery stipulation; if it continues to be Charter’s position that all responsive 

documents have been produced, it shall so confirm in writing without objection by the deadline 

specified above;

8. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to request for production nos. 35, 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 25 of 26
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

26

36, and 37; Charter is ordered to produce all documents responsive to these requests for a 2% 

random sampling of putative class member employees, consistent with the parties’ discovery 

stipulation, without objection;

9. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to request for production nos. 50, 

51, 52, and 53; Charter is ordered to produce all responsive documents for a 2% random 

sampling; Charter shall produce any documents or other information is may rely upon to assert 

and prove the existence of enforceable arbitration agreements;

10. Except for monetary sanctions, Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and other 

relief, ECF No. 118, is denied without prejudice to re-filing consistent with the notice provisions 

of Local Rule 251(a); and

11. As to monetary sanctions, Plaintiffs shall file and serve a declaration of 

costs and expenses on or before May 10, 20201; Charter may file and serve a response within 3 

days of the date of service of Plaintiffs’ declaration; upon the filing of the parties’ declarations,

the Court will, by separate order and without a subsequent hearing, impose appropriate monetary 

sanctions against Charter. 

Dated: May 4, 2021

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 133 Filed 05/05/21 Page 26 of 26