Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01190/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01190-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The parties’ letter briefs can be found at Docket Nos. 278, 281 and 282.

2

 Plaintiffs also requested certain liability-related documents, including payroll records and

documents or communications indicating which plaintiffs performed certain types of work (e.g.,

community work, on-call work, piece rate work) during the Relevant Time Period. However, plaintiffs

apparently do not move to compel additional responses to these requests.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE BRYANT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01190 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY

REQUEST

(Docket No. 278)

In this discovery request, the first of five such requests filed by plaintiffs in the past two weeks,

plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendants to produce documents and information responsive to

certain document requests and interrogatories.1

I. “Relevant Time Period” 

The parties’ first dispute concerns Document Request No. 1, which asked for “[a]ll handbooks,

manuals, guidelines or other policy and procedure documents concerning or directed to Employees,

including any drafts, versions or copies written, used or in effect during the Relevant Time Period.”2

Plaintiffs defined the “Relevant Time Period” for the request as extending back to January 1, 2000, and

defendants objected to the request on the ground that this time period extends well beyond the liability

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 292 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

period in this case. 

The parties dispute whether discovery should proceed according to the longest statute of

limitations applicable to the claims of only the named plaintiffs, or the longest statute applicable to the

potential claims of all putative class members. Under SCI’s formulation, discovery should be limited

to four years from the date of filing, or December 2002. Under plaintiffs’ formulation, discovery should

stretch back to December 2000. Plaintiffs argue that a discovery request seeking documents for only

eleven months prior to the start of the liability period is not overly burdensome.

Regardless of which limitations period should be applied for discovery purposes, the Court

agrees with plaintiffs that information concerning the formulation and application of SCI’s wage and

hour policies as far back as January 2000 is relevant and discoverable. SCI has produced information

dating back to 2002. To the extent SCI is in possession of any additional policy documents that are

responsive to the request, it is directed to produce such documents no later than June 7, 2010.

II. “SCI Companies”

In certain document requests and interrogatories, plaintiff asked for information relating to “The

SCI Companies,” which they defined as “Service Corporation International and companies, entities

and/or locations affiliated with and/or owned directly and/or indirectly by Service Corporation

International, including any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors, present or former partners,

officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys or representatives, and all other persons or entities

acting, purporting to act or authorized to act on its behalf.” 

The parties agree that SCI must produce documents from any subsidiaries or other entities over

which it exercises legal control. See United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFLCIO, 870 F.3d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A corporation must produce documents possessed by a

subsidiary that the parent corporation owns or wholly controls.”). However, SCI objects to the requests

to the extent they also purport to seek discovery from “affiliates,” “present or former partners,” and

“attorneys or representatives.” SCI asserts that these entities are not within its legal control and

therefore not subject to a discovery request directed to SCI. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that, to the

extent SCI asserts that certain entities covered by plaintiffs’ request are not within its control, SCI must

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 292 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

identify the entities to plaintiffs rather than simply asserting a lack of control in a conclusory manner.

SCI shall produce such information to plaintiffs by June 7, 2010.

III. Local-Level Policies

The parties’ final dispute concerns plaintiffs’ request for production of policy documents that

originated at a regional or local level. SCI refused to produce documents reflecting any local policies

or practices on the ground that any local policies are outside the scope of plaintiffs’ allegations, which

pertain only to nationwide policies. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that local and regional policy

documents may ultimately be relevant to plaintiffs’ claims. However, the Court does not believe that

plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of these documents at this stage, given the immense burden SCI will

undergo if forced to search for and produce documents from approximately 1500 locations across the

country. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request to compel responses to the document requests and

interrogatories calling for local and regional-level policies is DENIED at this time.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SCI shall produce

discovery responses in accordance with this order no later than June 7, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 292 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 3