Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02784/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02784-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

KELLY SERVICES,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-2784 CW (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

On January 30, 2008, the Honorable Claudia Wilken

referred all discovery disputes in this case to me for

resolution. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendant

to provide complete responses to her requests for production

numbers 21, 22, and 23. I find no need for oral argument. 

For the reasons set forth below, IT IS ORDERED that

plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of herself and others

similarly situated against defendant, a temporary staffing

agency, under California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 which

require payment of an employee’s final wages immediately upon

termination. Plaintiff contends that it is defendant’s

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 33 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 4
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

practice to pay its employees on the Friday following the week

that the employee worked, even if the employee’s assignment

ends before that Friday and the employee is not scheduled to

begin work on another assignment. Plaintiff argues this

practice violates Labor Code sections 201 and 202 because

without another assignment, the employment relationship is

terminated requiring immediate payment. Defendant contends

that the employment relationship is ongoing, so immediate

payment is not necessary. Plaintiff claims that when an

employee has sought benefits before the Unemployment Insurance

Appeals Board, the Employment Development Department and/or

the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, defendant has, at

times, taken the opposite position; that a temporary employee

who is not currently on assignment is terminated. Defendant

does not deny this may have happened. Plaintiff is seeking an

order compelling the production of discovery regarding this

issue.

After filing their initial papers, the parties engaged in

further meet and confer discussions. In response to

defendant’s opposition that the requests for production are

overbroad and overly burdensome, plaintiff agreed to narrow

the scope of the requests.

In its opposition, defendant argued that producing the

requested documents would be unduly burdensome without

providing evidence setting forth the burden. Plaintiff argued

that defendant’s showing was inadequate. Six days after

plaintiff filed her reply papers, defendant filed a sur reply

and declarations from two of its employees setting forth facts

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 33 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 4
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 Plaintiff agreed to limit the scope of her request to

documents wherein defendant took the position that the claimant

was not entitled to benefits because his or her employment had

ended. Plaintiff also agreed to limit the requests to

documents submitted to the specified agencies by defendant in

response to a claim filed by temporary staffing employees of

defendants and to exclude defendant’s permanent employees.

3

regarding the burden it would suffer in order to respond to

the requests. Plaintiff immediately filed a motion to strike

the improper sur reply and supporting declarations. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d) provides that other than when filing a

Statement of Recent Decision, “once a reply is filed, no

additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without

prior Court approval.” Here, defendant did not seek leave to

file the sur reply and supporting declarations. It is

therefore ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike is

GRANTED. 

The issue of whether defendant takes a different position

with regards to the termination status of employees whose

assignments have ended for the purposes of payment of wages

versus employees who are seeking benefits is relevant to

issues of class certification, such as whether common issues

of law and fact exist. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); see also

Babbitt v. Albertson’s, Inc., 1992 WL 605652 at *3 (N.D.Cal.

1992). Defendant’s objection that the requests would be

overly burdensome can be addressed by plaintiff’s agreement to

limit the scope of her requests1 and by initially limiting the

time period for which defendant shall respond to a six month

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 33 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 4
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 Plaintiff defines the putative class members as

defendant’s employees whose employment ended during the four

year period prior to the filing of her suit, May 29, 2007, and

who did not receive their final check on the final day they

worked. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 13.)

3 The court understands the parties have resolved all

the issues of privacy and privilege.

4

period beginning in May 29, 2003.2 It is therefore ORDERED

that plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART subject

to the above limitations.3 If after reviewing the documents

produced, plaintiff believes that the information it has

received warrant the production of documents for a broader

period, it may seek further discovery at that time.

Dated: March 4, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\SULLIVAN V. KELLY\ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-02784-CW Document 33 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 4