Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

 (Plaintiff’s Renewed Objection to Magistrate Judge Order Denying Motion to Compel

Production of Plaintiff’s Original Payroll Records, hereafter, “Objection,” Docket Item No. 94.)

2

 (Declaration of Adam Wang in Support of Plaintiff’ Renewed Objection to Order Denying

Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Original Payroll Records, hereafter, “Wang Decl.,” Ex.

1, Docket Item No. 95.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Paulo Aranda,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NTH Connect Telecom, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-04738 JW 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SEEBORG’S ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO COMPEL

Paulo Aranda (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Nth Connect Telecom, Inc. and Steven

Chen (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S. C. § 201. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly classified him as an hourly employee and, therefore,

unlawfully denied him overtime and other benefits. (See Docket Item No. 1.)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his

motion to compel production of certain documents.1

 Plaintiff sought discovery of any and all

documents that contained information regarding Plaintiff’s payroll records.2 A dispute arose as to

whether Defendants had produced all records in their possession. Plaintiff brought a motion to

compel production. (See Docket Item No. 24.) Magistrate Judge Seeborg granted in part and denied

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 103 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 4
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

in part Plaintiff’s motion. (See Docket Item No. 55.) Judge Seeborg ordered Defendants to turn

over certain electronic data containing information regarding Plaintiff’s pay records. Defendants

produced a compilation of that data in the form of a spreadsheet. (Wang Decl., Ex. 2., hereafter,

“Spreadsheet.”)

Plaintiff brought a second motion to compel on the grounds that the Spreadsheet was a

summary prepared for the litigation and not the original document. (See Docket Item No. 67.) 

Judge Seeborg denied Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that there was no evidence suggesting

Defendants had not produced all the responsive information in their possession. (See Docket Item

No. 83.) Judge Seeborg stated that Plaintiff was not entitled to all of Defendants’ payroll records

since they contained private information of other employees. (Id.)

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Judge Seeborg’s order. (See Docket Item No. 86.) 

Plaintiff proffered as new evidence a pay stub of his from July 4, 2006. (See Docket Item No. 87.) 

Since the Spreadsheet contained no information past April 7, 2006, Plaintiff contended that the pay

stub was “smoking gun” evidence that the Spreadsheet was incomplete.

Judge Seeborg denied Plaintiff’s motion. (See Docket Item No. 93.) Judge Seeborg found

that Plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of showing that he could not have produced the pay stub

prior to the hearing on the motion “through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” See Civ. L. R. 7-

9. Further, Judge Seeborg credited Defendants’ declaration that 1) they do not have copies of pay

check stubs and 2) they have produced all information from their computer files that relate to

Plaintiff, and 3) a redacted version of all their payroll records would yield exactly the same

information contained in the Spreadsheet. Judge Seeborg concluded that Plaintiff had failed to

produce new evidence suggesting Defendants were withholding responsive documents.

Plaintiff objects to Judge Seeborg’s order on the grounds that he erred in concluding that 1)

the original payroll document is not responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery request, 2) that the

Spreadsheet contained all the information in the document pertaining to Plaintiff, and 3) failing to

order Defendants to produce a redacted version of the original document.

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 103 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 4
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

A district court may modify a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter, such as

an order to compel discovery, if the order is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir.

1991). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2, the court may not grant a motion objecting to a

Magistrate Judge’s order without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to brief the matter. 

See Civ. L.R. 72-2. 

Plaintiff’s evidence that the Spreadsheet is not complete consists of his newly found pay stub

and excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition of Defendants’ payroll supervisor. (Objection at 3.) Plaintiff

contends that during the deposition, the payroll supervisor did not unequivocally state she had

copied every line pertaining to Plaintiff in the original document into the Spreadsheet. However,

Judge Seeborg found that Defendants have stated repeatedly since then that all information in the

document pertaining to Plaintiff was transferred to the Spreadsheet. (See Docket Item No. 83 and

93.) Judge Seeborg found these representations credible and found that a redacted version of the

original document would not produce any additional information. Plaintiff’s evidence does not

refute these findings. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that Judge Seeborg’s denial was “clearly

erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection.

Dated: January 31, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 103 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Adam Wang waqw@sbcglobal.net

Grant Andrew Carlson gcarlson@go4law.com

Dated: January 31, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 103 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 4