Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01729/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01729-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LI DONG MA ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RSM MCGLADREY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-1729 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO

COMPEL

(Re: Docket Nos. 49 & 52)

On June 8, 2010, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant RSM McGladrey, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) to

provide further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for

Documents. Based on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED with regard to Interrogatory

No. 4, without prejudice to a more narrowly crafted interrogatory. In her briefing, Plaintiff argued

the discovery was relevant to identify putative class members, and that the tax associates would be

witnesses with respect to the claims and defenses in this action. As to the identity of putative class

members, unless and until District Judge Fogel extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 83 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 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

In his order of April 27, 2010, Judge Fogel noted that his denial of Plaintiff’s request to

1

extend the deadline for moving for class certification was without prejudice because “it is conceivable

that Judge Trumbull could find that Defendants’ actions with respect to discovery may have affected

Plaintiff’s ability to move for class certification in a timely manner.” Nothing the parties submitted to

the court in connection with Plaintiff’s motions to compel suggests that Defendants did anything that

affected Plaintiff’s ability to move for class certification in a timely manner. Plaintiff served the

discovery on January 9, 2009. Defendant served its responses and objections on February 27, 2009.

Plaintiff waited almost a year before attempting to meet and confer with Defendant regarding its

objections to the discovery. Nothing in the record indicates that Plaintiff’s delay in moving to compel

was in any way Defendant’s fault.

ORDER, page 2

class certification, the identity of any putative class members is irrelevant. As to identification of 1

percipient witnesses, the interrogatory is far too broad. Plaintiff fails to explain what kinds of

discoverable information all of Defendant’s tax associates, nationwide, would have that would either

be relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, or could lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff propounding a more narrowly tailored

interrogatory. Any such additional interrogatory shall not count towards the 25 interrogatory limit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED with regard to Interrogatory

No. 9, without prejudice to a more narrowly crafted interrogatory. Plaintiff has not explained how

all written rules, guidelines, policies, or procedures that govern the relationship between Plaintiff

and Defendant are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, or could lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff propounding a more narrowly

tailored interrogatory. Any such additional interrogatory shall not count towards the 25 interrogatory

limit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to

Interrogatory No. 15, as discussed at the hearing. Defendant’s objection that Plaintiff exceeded the

limit on interrogatories because some of the prior interrogatories purportedly contain impermissible

sub-parts is OVERRULED. The only interrogatory the parties briefed regarding sub-parts is

Interrogatory No. 6. The sub-parts in that interrogatory are secondary to the main question, and are

thus permissible. See Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D.Cal. 1998). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to

Interrogatory No. 16. The interrogatory (as narrowed by Plaintiff) asks how Defendant tracks the

hours worked by tax associates, and how Defendant classifies those hours as billable or non-billable. 

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 83 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

If Defendant does not track hours worked by its tax associates, and instead relies entirely on its

employees to track their own work hours, it should expressly state so in its answer. The temporal

scope is limited to the relevant time frame, which for purposes of this and all other discovery

discussed in this order is the four years preceding the filing of this action. The court finds that, even

with regard to Plaintiff’s individual claims, a four year temporal scope is reasonable because

information relevant to Defendant’s wage and hour policies, procedures and practices during the

time periods shortly before and after Plaintiff’s tenure may well be relevant to what Defendant’s

wage and hour policies, procedures and practices were during Plaintiff’s tenure.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to

Interrogatory No. 17. However, this interrogatory is limited to persons whose job responsibility

included determining Defendant’s compliance with California state wage and hour laws.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except to the extent Defendant agreed to supplement its

response during the parties’ meet and confer process, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED with regard to

Interrogatory No. 18. Plaintiff does not explain how all services Defendant offers to its clients is

relevant. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except to the extent Defendant agreed to supplement its

response during the parties’ meet and confer process, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED with regard to

Interrogatory No. 21. Plaintiff does not explain how the other information requested is relevant to

her individual claims or Defendant’s defenses.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to

Interrogatory No. 22, except that it is limited to tax associates in California. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to Document

Request Nos. 8, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 23, pursuant to Defendant’s agreement to supplement its

responses and its production in response to these requests.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to Document

Request No. 12 pursuant to Defendant’s agreement at the hearing to supplement its response to

confirm that it has produced all job competencies and job descriptions for tax associates in

California during the relevant time period.

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 83 Filed 07/19/10 Page 3 of 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

ORDER, page 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except to the extent Defendant agreed to produce

documents that describe RSM’s California tax line during the relevant time period, Plaintiff’s motion

is DENIED with regard to Document Request No. 17. Plaintiff does not explain how any of the

other requested organizational charts are relevant to her individual claims or Defendant’s defenses.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to Document

Request Nos. 19 and 20 to the extent of Defendant’s offer to supplement, and Plaintiff’s acceptance

of that offer, at the hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART with regard to

Document Request Nos. 27, 28 and 40. The parties shall request permission from the vendor(s) of

the software at issue to allow Defendant to demonstrate the software for Plaintiff’s counsel, and

allow Plaintiff’s counsel to inspect the software programs. If the vendors do not voluntarily agree to

allow the demonstration and inspection, Plaintiff may subpoena copies of the software from the

vendors solely for use in connection with this lawsuit. Absent further order of the court or

agreement of the parties to the contrary, any such subpoena must be served no later than August 31,

2010. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED with regard to Document

Request No. 29, except that it is limited to tax associates and the relevant time period. To the extent

Defendant contends it has no responsive documents, it shall confirm that fact in its supplemental

response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART with regard to Document Request No. 37. To the extent it seeks wage and hour claims

and/or lawsuits outside of California, Plaintiff has not established that the requested documents are

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. To the extent the request seeks wage and hour

lawsuits brought by tax associates in California, Defendant has represented there were none. 

However, the request is not limited to lawsuits, but would also include claims submitted to the

California Labor Commissioner, or claims settled without any filing either in court or with the 

Labor Commissioner. To the extent any wage and hour claims were asserted against Defendant

during the relevant time period for work performed in California, whether filed with the court

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 83 Filed 07/19/10 Page 4 of 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

ORDER, page 5

or the California Labor Commissioner, or simply made by demand letter to Defendant, Defendant

shall produce sufficient documents to identify the claimant, the claim(s) asserted, the court and case

number or Labor Commissioner file number (if any), and the resolution (if any).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding a

reasonable time for Defendant to comply with the orders herein. If the parties cannot agree, Plaintiff

shall file a short supplemental brief setting forth her proposal for the response and production

deadlines. Defendant shall file a responsive brief within 3 court days after Plaintiff files her

supplemental brief. The court will then issue a further order setting the deadlines without any further

oral argument.

Dated: 7/19/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01729-JF Document 83 Filed 07/19/10 Page 5 of 5