Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00420-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FOWLER PACKING COMPANY INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-DAD-SAB

ORDER FOLLOWING INFORMAL 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE

(ECF Nos. 231, 232, 233)

Currently before the Court is a discovery dispute between the parties that was the subject 

of an informal hearing held on February 11, 2020. 

I.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2019, the undersigned issued an order granting in part and denying in part 

Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 209.) The order granted Defendants leave to 

conduct a total of fifteen depositions of the absent class members who submitted declarations in 

support of the motion for class certification. (Id. at 30.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the order which was granted in part and denied in part by District Judge Dale 

A. Drozd on June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 220.) The order on reconsideration limited the 

depositions to four hours for each deposition of the absent class members. (Id. at 220.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 9
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

The parties proceeded to attempt to complete the depositions but were only able to 

complete eleven of the fifteen depositions. (Informal Discovery Dispute Joint Letter Brief 

(“Br.”) 1, ECF No. 232.) In July of 2019, Defendants emailed a list of fifteen (15) proposed 

deponents, requesting completion by the end of August. (Id.) On July 30, 2019, Plaintiffs 

requested ten (10) additional proposed deponents because of several unavailable deponents. (Id.) 

Defendants provided an additional twenty (20) names in July and August of 2019. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs were ultimately able to schedule ten (10) depositions for the week of August 12, 2019, 

but only nine (9) appeared. (Id.) Thereafter, Defendants asked to schedule the remaining six (6) 

depositions before the September 26, 2019 discovery cutoff. (Id.) On August 29, 2019, 

Plaintiffs informed Defendants they were having difficulty scheduling the depositions and 

suggested stipulating to extend the discovery deadline, and Defendants agreed. (Id.) On 

September 13, 2019, the Court amended the scheduling order to accommodate the depositions 

and extended the non-expert discovery deadline until December 26, 2019. (ECF No. 223.) 

Plaintiffs were only able to schedule two depositions in October of 2019, and on October 

23, 2019, Defendants provided contact information for five declarants who were current 

employees and requested to schedule their depositions. (Br. 2.) In meeting and conferring on 

November 15, 2019, Plaintiffs explained they did not have four of the individuals available 

because a number of former employees had left to work in other states for harvests. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs also stated they had leads for people that Defendants may be able to depose in February 

or March of 2020, when they were expected to return to California. (Id.) Defendants offered to 

travel outside of California to depose these individuals. (Id.) 

The parties reached an impasse and requested an informal discovery dispute conference 

before the undersigned which was held on November 22, 2019. (ECF No. 228.) Following the 

conference, on November 25, 2019, the undersigned issued an order finding that the Defendants 

were entitled to complete the remaining four depositions of absent class members who had 

already submitted declarations in support of the motion for class certification. (ECF No. 227 at 

4-5.) The undersigned found that if Plaintiffs were unable to find class members who were 

willing to sit for depositions, Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 9
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

party may use a subpoena to command the attendance for a deposition, and therefore, Defendants 

may command the presence of the absent class member by use of a subpoena for any remaining 

depositions for a total of fifteen. (ECF No. 227 at 5.) The Court again extended the deadline for 

completion of non-expert discovery until March 26, 2020. (ECF No. 229.) 

Following the previous informal discovery conference and the Court’s order entered on 

November 25, 2019, no more depositions have been completed. Thus, the number of completed 

depositions remains at eleven, and Defendants are still seeking four more depositions. (Br. 1.) 

The parties have again requested an informal discovery dispute conference, which the Court set 

to be held on February 11, 2020. (ECF No. 231.) On February 10, 2020, the parties submitted a 

joint informal discovery dispute letter brief setting out their respective positions concerning the 

current discovery dispute. (ECF No. 232.) A telephonic conference was held on February 11, 

2020, regarding the discovery dispute. (ECF No. 233.) Counsel Mario Martinez appeared for 

Plaintiffs, and counsel Ian Weiland, Charles Hamamjian, Bradley Hamburger, and Tiffany Phan 

appeared for Defendants. (Id.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Position 

Defendants emphasize that after the previous informal conference, this Court’s order 

stated that Defendants could serve subpoenas to complete the remaining depositions, and also 

noted that the Court could strike declarations for failing to appear for a deposition. (Br. 2, citing 

ECF No. 227 at 4-5.) Defendants served the deposition subpoenas to Plaintiffs’ counsel for the 

five current employees identified on the October 23, 2019 list. (Id.) On January 14, 2020, 

Plaintiffs confirmed the schedule for the noticed January 16, 2020 depositions, but stated they 

were “not confident that all or any of them will show.” (Id.) None of the subpoenaed deponents 

appeared for their depositions in January of 2020. (Id.) 

Defendants argue they have been accommodating as possible but have only been able to 

complete eleven depositions of the forty-four declarants after eight months, despite this Court 

finding the depositions to be reasonably necessary to addressing the claims and defenses in this 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 9
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

matter. (Id.) Now, Defendants request the Court to strike the thirty-three (33) declarations for 

the individuals that did not appear for deposition, or at a minimum strike the declarations of 

those who were served with a subpoena and failed to appear for a deposition. (Id.) 

Additionally, Defendants request the Court grant Defendants permission to develop a 

method for deposing non-declarant class members from a variety of crews, given the Court’s 

previous finding that the claims, allegations, and defenses are diverse and dependent on the 

experiences of a spectrum of employees. (Br. 2.)1 Defendants argue that the deponents thus far 

have only been from a small number of crews that Defendants contend are unrepresentative of 

the typical crew, and argue they require additional depositions to understand the circumstances 

of other crews as experienced by the class members. (Br. 2-3.) Defendants argue this 

information cannot be obtained through other means and is warranted because they have only 

been able to obtain deposition testimony related to a limited number of crews. (Br. 3.) 

B. Plaintiffs’ Position 

Plaintiffs first argue the requested relief is improper due to a failure to meet and confer 

regarding the specific relief requested. Prior to receiving the draft joint statement the morning of 

February 10, 2020, hours before due, Defendants had never mentioned striking class member 

declarations from workers that did not appear for depositions, nor had they mentioned deposing 

class members who had not submitted declarations in connection with the dispute. (Br. 3.) 

Second, Plaintiffs argue that even if Defense counsel had conferred regarding these 

 

1

 The Court’s full statement which Defendants quote in part is as follows: “For these reasons, this case is also 

distinguishable from McPhail, heavily relied upon by Plaintiffs, where the court did not allow written interrogatories 

and requests for admission to be directed at all 178,527 members of the class. 251 F.R.D. at 517-18. The McPhail

court found such expansive discovery not necessary because defendants could rebut the element of reliance by the 

class members by presenting testimony at trial from sales personnel, managers, and officers, who could testify that 

there were not policies that encouraged misrepresentations in sales pitches, or by presenting and demonstrating that 

sales scripts did not contain material misrepresentations. Id. at 518. This is similar to Negrete in this regard, where 

the element of reliance by the class depended on whether defendant Allianz had disseminated uniform and 

misleading statements and whether the products were intrinsically less valuable than other investments, and the 

court had found such element did not turn on ‘the degree to which individual class members relied upon the alleged 

misrepresentations and omissions of Allianz’s salespersons.’ 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118563 at *10-12. Here, 

unlike McPhail and Negrete, the claims, allegations, and defenses to such are more diverse and dependent upon the 

experiences of a spectrum of employees that worked for different crew-bosses, in different locations at different time 

periods, and for different crop products, which Defendants hope to survey given these particular proposed deponents 

have submitted declarations concerning these claims.” (ECF No. 209 at 21.) 

The Court’s statement was made in granting limited discovery directed at absent class members who had 

injected themselves into the litigation by submitting declarations in support of class certification. 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 9
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

remedies, the request for random class members depositions is improper because it would go 

beyond the previous orders of this Court which only allowed depositions of fifteen class 

members who had “injected” themselves into the litigation by submitting declarations. (Br. 3; 

ECF No. 220 at 7-8.) 

Third, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ request to strike declarations conflicts with 

Defendants’ representations throughout these proceedings that they would not seek sanctions 

against any class member that failed to appear for depositions. (Br. 4.) Plaintiffs emphasize that 

Defendants stated on the record “that they will not move to exclude the individuals from the 

class who fail to appear at their noticed depositions, nor will they attempt to have sanctions 

imposed in any way against deponents who fail to appear.” (Br. 4, quoting ECF No. 220 at 11.) 

Plaintiffs argue the request to strike declarations not only from the five people who were served 

subpoenas, but for all thirty-three (33) individuals who have not been deposed (many of whom 

have not even been located), is inconsistent with these representations and the Court’s orders 

which took those representations into account when ordering the fifteen (15) depositions. (Br. 

4.) 

Plaintiffs state they are willing to cooperate with Defendants, but the requested relief is 

far beyond the Court’s orders and any meet and confer efforts. (Br. 3.)

C. The Court Shall Order Certain Class Members to Appear for Depositions

who have Failed to Appear 

As discussed at the teleconference hearing, the Court is not inclined to strike any 

declarations based on the limited briefing and the posture of the facts presently before it. The

Court found it most appropriate to have the parties submit the names of the individual class 

members that have failed to appear for depositions despite being served with subpoenas, and the 

Court would then order the individuals to appear for depositions. To this end, during the 

teleconference, the Court ordered the parties to submit the proposed names, dates, and locations 

for the depositions of the absent class members to occur, which the parties have done. 

Accordingly, the Court shall, by the entering of this order, require those individuals to appear for 

depositions at the time and place proposed by the parties. 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 9
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 Court will not consider the merits of striking any declarations until the potential 

deponents that have been ordered by this Court to appear for depositions fail to do so, and the 

Defendants bring a formal motion for such relief based on the failure to appear. While not 

weighing the merits or opining as to what direction the undersigned may take if the deponents 

again fail to appear for the depositions, given the concerns addressed by the parties in their joint 

letter brief, the Court will now highlight some of the relevant prior statements and holdings of 

this Court concerning the issue of potential sanctions or other potential relief to address the 

failure of absent class members to appear for depositions. 

Pursuant to the orders that have been issued in this action, Defendants may take the 

deposition of fifteen of the absent class members who injected themselves into the litigation by 

submitting declarations in support of the motion for class certification. (ECF Nos. 209, 220.)2 

As Plaintiffs highlight, it is true that in the previous order issued by the undersigned following 

the last informal discovery dispute conference, the Court stated: “While the Defendants have 

agreed that no action will be taken against the class members based on their failure to appear, 

there are appropriate sanctions that could be imposed.” (ECF No. 227 at 4.)3 

In issuing its March 5, 2019 order, the undersigned considered Plaintiffs’ “request that if 

 

2

 As should be apparent by this order, the Court is also not inclined to consider Defendants’ request to allow for 

deposing absent class members outside of those who submitted declarations in support of the motion for class 

certification, without a formal motion and further briefing on the issue. The Court’s previous orders clearly limited 

the depositions to those who had injected themselves into the litigation through such declarations. 

3

 The case cited in the Court’s previous order was Rojas v. Marko Zaninovich, Inc, No. 1:09-CV-00705 AWI, 2011 

WL 2636071, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2011), which presented issues very similar to the ones in dispute currently 

here. Rojas involved a class action where plaintiffs were unnamed former and current farm workers for the 

defendant farm owners. Rojas, 2011 WL 2636071, at *1. In support of the motion for class certification, plaintiffs 

submitted fifty-five declarations, including forty-nine (49) from putative class members. Id. The court granted 

defendants’ initial request to depose five of the absent class members who submitted declarations, and defendants 

thereafter subpoenaed certain declarants. Id. Two declarants were unavailable or unwilling to be deposed and 

plaintiffs willingly withdrew the declarations of these two declarants. Id. Eventually, defendants filed a motion to 

compel the deposition of additional putative class members. Id. at *2. The court granted the motion to compel the 

deposition of additional class members because the initial depositions revealed inaccuracies in other declarations, 

and the additional depositions were relevant and not for an improper purpose. Id. The court ordered plaintiffs to use 

good faith efforts to produce the additional four deponents, stated the court “expects that Plaintiff will withdraw the 

declaration of any declarant who willfully refuses to appear for deposition,” and stated as “to those not withdrawn, 

the Court will consider striking these declarations unless good cause not to strike them is shown.” Id. at *5. 

The Court suggests that Plaintiffs consider the direction given by the court in Rojas which stated that it 

expected the plaintiffs to voluntarily withdraw any declaration from a class member that willingly refused to appear 

for a deposition. 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 9
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

the deponents fail to appear, the Court should not allow penalties such as sanctions or the 

striking of declarations from being imposed on Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 209 at 3.) In the March 5, 

2019 order, in finding no improper purpose behind the depositions sought by Defendants, the 

undersigned noted that:

Defendants assured the Court at the hearing that Defendants are not planning on 

sanctioning or seeking other punishments for absent class members who do not 

appear for depositions, and if a substantial number do not show, they may 

alternatively have to seek deposing different members from the list of members 

who submitted declarations in support of the motion for certification. This is 

similar to Arredondo, where the court found no evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ 

allegation that Defendants planned to use the depositions to remove absent class 

members from the litigation for failing to appear at their noticed depositions, and 

if such improper purposes began to surface, plaintiffs could then bring such 

concern before the court. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145562, at 24-26. If Plaintiffs 

fail to appear for a large number of depositions here, or Defendants do in fact seek 

sanctions or other remedies, the Court can address those issues when they come 

before the Court. 

(ECF No. 209 at 29-30.) The undersigned then specifically held that: “Plaintiffs’ request to limit 

Defendants’ ability to seek sanction or other penalties for deponents that fail to appear for the 

depositions is DENIED, as the Court declines to make such a blanket restriction before any 

particular situation is presented to the Court, however the Court will duly consider the fact that 

Defendants assured the Court that they do not plan on seeking any such sanctions or penalties if 

Defendants in fact do pursue such remedies.” (ECF No. 209 at 31.) 

District Judge Drozd’s order on reconsideration, noted that “defendants have stated on 

the record that they will not move to exclude individuals from the class who fail to appear at 

their noticed deposition, nor will they attempt to have sanctions imposed in any way against 

deponents who fail to appear.” (ECF No. 220 at 10-11.) Judge Drozd then specifically 

referenced the undersigned’s acknowledgment of Defendants’ representations and reproduced 

verbatim the undersigned’s holding denying Plaintiffs’ request to limit Defendants’ ability to 

seek sanctions. (ECF No. 220 at 11, n. 5.) Judge Drozd then stated “[i]n light of defendants’ 

representations in this regard, the court does not find that defendants have a demonstrated 

improper purpose for seeking to depose the absent class members.” (ECF No. 220 at 11.) 

Thus, while the Court considered the Defendants’ proffer that they would not seek 

sanctions against class members who failed to appear for depositions or seek to exclude the 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 7 of 9
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

individuals from the class in determining whether the discovery was sought for an improper 

purpose, the undersigned expressly declined to grant Plaintiffs’ request to preemptively foreclose

such relief until the precise situation was ripe and presented to the Court. Further, as Defendants 

argued at the teleconference, it is not clear that the striking of declarations is the type of sanction, 

if it is to be considered a sanction, that the Court and the Defendants were envisioning as unfairly 

targeting the absent class members. Rather, the Court was concerned with potential monetary 

sanctions that may have been sought against the individual class members such as to cover the 

costs of the deposition, or the seeking of removing the absent class members altogether from the 

class resulting in the member being excluded from the a potential settlement or judgment, rather 

than simply striking the declarations and preventing the declarations from being used for other 

purposes where the declarant fails to appear for a deposition. The Court was concerned about any 

incentive for anyone to appear for a deposition and frankly the rule of law. Again, the Court will 

reserve decision until the matter is raised and ripe for this Court’s consideration. 

Now turning to the crux of this order, the Court shall order the six proposed depositions 

to occur as submitted by the parties. Defendants are only entitled to a total of four more 

depositions, and thus once four are completed, any remaining depositions shall be cancelled. 

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The following individuals appear for depositions at the time and place described 

below:

a. Mariano Carranza on March 4, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at U.S. Legal Support, 

5200 Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93704; 

b. Claudia Villafuerte on March 4, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at U.S. Legal Support, 

5200 N Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93704;

c. Guadalupe Saldana on March 4, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. at U.S. Legal Support, 

5200 N Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93704; 

d. Maria Isabel Esquivel on March 4, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. at U.S. Legal 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 8 of 9
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

Support, 5200 N Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA 93704; 

e. Miguel Angel Orosco on March 5, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at Sagaser, Watkins 

& Wieland, 5260 N. Palm Ave. Ste. 400 Fresno, CA 93704; 

f. Silva Machuca on March 5, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at Sagaser, Watkins & 

Wieland, 5260 N. Palm Ave. Ste. 400 Fresno, CA 93704; and 

2. Once four of the above depositions are completed any remaining depositions are 

ordered cancelled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 234 Filed 02/14/20 Page 9 of 9