Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01688/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01688-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNICE RATCLIFFE,

Plaintiff, 

v.

APEX SYSTEMS, LLC,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

[ECF No. 36]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of 

a discovery dispute filed on May 14, 2020. (ECF No. 36). The Joint Motion 

presents Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to certain Requests 

for Production of documents served upon Defendant. 

At the outset, the statement of “Preliminary Matters” supplied by 

counsel for Plaintiff is offensive to the Court. (ECF No. 36-1 at 4).1

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original page 

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 40 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

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

Disparaging opposing counsel is always inappropriate. Future outbursts will 

be met with sanctions. 

This is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges violations of the 

California Labor Code. The First Amended Complaint, filed on January 14, 

2020, alleges eight causes of action: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period 

premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final 

wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements; unreimbursed

business expenses; and unfair business practices. (ECF No. 22). Defendant 

is in the business of placing contract employees at various businesses. 

Plaintiff was an employee placed by Defendant and paid by Defendant on an 

hourly basis. Plaintiff proposes a class consisting of all current and former 

California-based hourly-paid employees of Defendant within the State of 

California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing 

of this Complaint to final judgment. (Id.).

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

“Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence 

to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to limit 

discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of 

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response 

 

numbers throughout.

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 40 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

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

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding 

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, 

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is 

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the 

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the 

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Prior to certification of a class, some discovery regarding the class may 

be appropriate. See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 

942 (9th Cir. 2009)(“Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that 

often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class certification 

and that some discovery will be warranted.”). Discovery likely is warranted 

where the requested discovery will resolve factual issues necessary for the 

determination of whether the action may be maintained as a class action. 

Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). 

Plaintiff carries the burden of making either a prima facie showing that the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) to maintain a class action have been met 

or “that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” 

Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 40 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

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

DISCUSSION

In presenting the matter to the Court, Plaintiff grouped the requests 

and Defendant responded in kind. The Court will address the matter in the 

same fashion. 

1. Class Data

According to Plaintiff, this group includes Requests for Production 

(“RFP”) 8-12 and 26 seeking time sheets, payroll data, meal period waivers 

and the like for the entire putative class. Defendant asserts that it has 

produced the requested information for Plaintiff personally, but objects to the 

production of this information on a class-wide basis. Defendant alleges that 

there are potential class members with arbitration clauses in their 

employment agreement and it would be unduly burdensome to produce that 

information. The Joint Motion reflects that there was discussion between the 

parties regarding producing a limited sample of the remaining putative class 

members, redacting personally identifiable information, but the parties could 

not agree on the extent of the sample. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff 

has made no showing, or even attempted to show, that the requested 

discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class, as required by 

Mantolete. 

It is curious, that having received the requested information regarding 

Plaintiff’s individual claims, Plaintiff offers nothing to suggest that those 

records substantiate her claims, much less the class claims. If these records 

support her claim, the Court likely would order production of a sampling of 

the records of other employees to see if the issues presented in Plaintiff’s 

records are replicated in the records of others. See, e.g., DeLodder v. Aerotek, 

Inc., No. CV-08-6044-CAS-AGRx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2009). Plaintiff can only 

represent other “similarly situated” employees. Without supporting her own 

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 40 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

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

allegations from the records provided, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 

she is entitled to the records of others. Regarding these RFP’s, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel is denied for failing to meet the Mandolete test.

2. Job Titles and Work Duties

This category, according to Plaintiff, refers to RFPs 21 and 22 seeking 

job descriptions, work duties, and job titles for the putative class members. 

Plaintiff fails to present any argument regarding the relevance of these 

documents to her class allegations. Plaintiff’s proposed class is defined as all 

hourly employees and does not assert claims based on job titles, descriptions 

or duties. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of these documents is 

denied for lack of a showing of relevance to any claim or defense and for 

failing to meet the Mandolete test.

3. Worker Classification

This category, according to Plaintiff, refers to RFPs 23, 24, 27 and 28. 

The requests seek documents reflecting the classification of workers as 

exempt or non-exempt and questionnaires or surveys regarding hours worked 

or activities performed. Plaintiff again fails to provide any statement of 

relevance. Plaintiff has not alleged mis-classification in her First Amended 

Complaint. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of these documents is 

denied for lack of relevance to any claim or defense. 

4. Defendant’s Policies

This category, according to Plaintiff, refers to RFPs 13-20 and 25 and 

requests “policies applicable to the putative class.” (ECF No. 36-1 at 8). For 

clarity, the category includes: RFP 13 requesting documents reflecting 

Defendant’s policies regarding rest breaks; RFP 14 asking for the same 

regarding meal breaks; RFP 15 asking for policies regarding overtime; RFP 

16 pertaining to off-the-clock time; RFP 17 relating to payment of wages

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 40 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

19-cv-1688-WQH-MDD

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

including timing of payment during employment and upon termination, rates 

of pay and categories of wages; RFP 18 pertaining to worker classification; 

RFP 19 relating to itemized wage statements; RFP 20 pertaining to timekeeping; and RFP 25 relating to methods for determining hours worked. 

Defendant asserts that it has produced all policies pertaining to 

Plaintiff while she was employed by Defendant. While there may be some 

variations for employees placed at different businesses, Defendant asserts 

that Plaintiff has provided no basis for Defendant to conduct a search, 

employee by employee for those differing policies. To do so, they say, would 

be unduly burdensome. 

Plaintiff does not offer any argument that the policies that it has 

received from Defendant support any of Plaintiff’s causes of action. The 

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present information sufficient to 

satisfy the Mandolete test and denies the motion to compel regarding these 

RFPs. 

CONCLUSION

As presented in this Joint Motion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is 

DENIED.

Dated: May 26, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01688-WQH-MDD Document 40 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6