Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00057/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00057-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 

FRED BOWERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00057-WHO 

ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER 

BRIEF FILED ON MAY 16, 2016

Re: Dkt. No. 125

On May 16, 2016, the parties filed the fifth in a series of discovery letter briefs regarding 

their continuing dispute over the scope of discovery in this case, particularly from absent class 

members. Dkt. No. 125 (“Ltr.”). The letter focuses on the content of the Vendor Questionnaire 

(“VQ”) to be mailed to some subset of the vendors to whom the class notice was sent. See id. The 

issues raised in the letter are decided as follows: 

• The VQ should be sent to all Discovery Vendors, as that term is defined in the Further 

Order on Discovery Disputes issued on February 29, 2016. See Dkt. No. 118 at 1 (“a group of 

vendors consisting of: (1) vendor declarants in this case; (2) vendor deponents in this case; and 

(3) an additional ten percent of vendors to whom the class notice was sent”). 

• Plaintiffs’ general objections to the VQ process are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs’ concern 

that the VQ process will transform this Rule 23(b)(3) class action into an “opt-in class action” is 

particularly unpersuasive, given that FAS previously agreed, in the parties’ draft stipulation, that 

“[f]ailure to respond to the [VQ] by itself does not give FAS the right to challenge any class notice 

recipient’s inclusion in the class.” Dkt. No. 111. FAS has not argued that Discovery Vendors 

who fail to participate in the VQ process should be precluded from joining the class, and plaintiffs 

have not identified any reason why this would occur. 

• DISPUTE 1: I agree with plaintiffs’ alternative position, i.e., that the VQ should include 

the question, “Please identify the percentage of income received from FAS relative to other 

sources of income,” or the substantial equivalent of this question. 

• DISPUTE 2: I agree with plaintiffs’ alternative position, i.e., that the VQ should include 

Case 3:13-cv-00057-WHO Document 126 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

open-ended questions on this issue, such as, “How did you receive work orders from FAS?” and, 

“Could you turn them down?” 

• DISPUTE 3: I agree with FAS that this question may be included in the VQ. 

• DISPUTE 4: I agree with plaintiffs – this question will not provide FAS with any more 

relevant information than FAS would obtain through plaintiffs’ offered stipulation on the same 

subject. The question may not be included in the VQ. 

• DISPUTES 5 and 6: I agree with plaintiff that these questions will result in misleading 

answers. They may not be included in the VQ. 

• DISPUTE 7 (in letter) / DISPUTE 8 (in VQ attached to letter): I agree with plaintiffs 

that this document request is inappropriate in this case. It may not be included in the VQ. 

• DISPUTE 7 (in VQ attached to letter): The question asks, “Did YOU ever negotiate 

with FAS over the amount of money YOU received for jobs or services.” Ltr. Ex. A at 13. The 

parties do not discuss this question in the letter, and I do not address it here. 

• Finally, I agree with plaintiffs’ proposed case management deadlines,1 with some 

modifications: 

 10 days from date of this Order Deadline to mail VQ 

 45 days from the date of VQ mailing Deadline for responses to VQ

 November 4, 2016 Fact discovery cutoff (except as to damages) 

 January 11, 2017 Dispositive motions heard 

 March 3, 2017 Fact discovery cutoff (as to damages) 

 April 24, 2017 Pretrial Conference 

May 22, 2017 Trial 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016 ___________________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

 

1 Along with their proposed case management deadlines, plaintiffs assert in passing that FAS 

should pay the costs of mailing the VQ. See Ltr. at 8. Because the parties do not discuss this issue 

in the letter, I do not address it here. 

Case 3:13-cv-00057-WHO Document 126 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2