Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01938/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01938-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARCTIC GLACIER USA, INC., a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV1938-L(JMA)

ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF 

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On March 23, 2017, Defendant Arctic Glacier USA, Inc. (“Arctic Glacier”) 

filed a document captioned “Request for Reconsideration of Order re: Joint 

Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute.” [Doc. No. 30.] Plaintiff Jose 

Hernandez (“Hernandez”) has filed a brief in opposition and Plaintiff has also filed 

a reply brief in support of his motion. [Doc. No. 31 and 33.] Pursuant to CivLR 

7.1.d.1, the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. After due 

consideration of the parties’ briefs, the Court DENIES Arctic Glacier’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is a “collective action” brought by Hernandez under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 USC 216(b), on behalf of himself and other similarly 

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

situated employees of Arctic Glacier. Hernandez contends Arctic Glacier 

improperly classified him and other delivery drivers as exempt from overtime 

under the FLSA. Hernandez alleges he often worked more than eight hours a 

day and more than 40 hours a week, but was not paid overtime. He believes 

other delivery drivers followed a similar schedule and were likewise improperly 

classified as exempt from overtime. 

Hernandez filed a motion for conditional certification of his proposed FLSA 

class on October 17, 2016, before the Hon. M. James Lorenz. [Doc. No. 20.] On 

November 7, 2016, while the motion for conditional certification was pending, the 

parties filed a discovery motion before the undersigned, pursuant to which 

Hernandez sought to compel further responses to his Interrogatory No. 2 and 

thirteen requests for production of documents, including specifically Document 

Request No. 15, arguing the discovery was necessary for conditional certification 

of his proposed FLSA class.1[Doc. No. 21.] Arctic Glacier, which opposed

Hernandez’s motion for conditional certification on the basis he had failed to 

show he was similarly situated to the members of the putative class, argued 

Hernandez’s motion to compel should also be denied because the discovery he 

sought was premature since he had not shown he was similarly situated to the 

potential class members. [Doc. Nos. 21 & 22.] Although Arctic Glacier had 

asserted various other objections to production in its discovery responses, it did 

not rely on any of these other objections in connection with the discovery motion. 

In ruling on the discovery motion, the undersigned applied Ninth Circuit 

precedent, adopting the principle that although unlimited discovery is not 

 

1

 At the time, Hernandez explained he filed the motion for conditional certification before 

receiving a ruling on the discovery motion due to concerns regarding the running of the FLSA’s 

statute of limitations. [Doc. No. 21, p. 1, fn. 1.] On March 28, 2017, the Hon. M. James Lorenz 

denied Hernandez’s motion for conditional class certification without prejudice, finding 

Hernandez had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Arctic Glacier had a nationwide 

scheme to misclassify drivers. [Doc. No. 32.]

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

appropriate before conditional class certification is granted, the parties may 

undertake limited discovery necessary for defining the proposed class. [Doc. No. 

27, citing Morden v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42047, *6-13 

(W.D. Wash., June 22, 2006); Sargant v. HG Staffing, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

56580, *10-13 (D. Nev. Apr. 22, 2014); and Acevedo v. Ace Coffee Bar, Inc., 248 

F.R.D. 550, 553-556 (N.D. Ill. 2008).] The Court narrowed the scope of the 

discovery sought by Hernandez and, in pertinent part, ordered Arctic Glacier to 

provide full and complete responses to Hernandez’s Interrogatory No. 2 

(requesting Arctic Glacier provide the total number of FLSA PLAINTIFFS) and 

documents responsive to Request for Production No. 15 (calling for 

“DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify the number of FLSA PLAINTIFFS.”) Id. That 

order was issued on December 28, 2016, with a deadline of January 13, 2017 set 

for Arctic Glacier’s compliance. [Id. p. 7.] 

Instead of fully complying with the Court’s order as it related to 

Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production No. 15, Arctic Glacier produced 

supplemental discovery responses and documents that identified FLSA Plaintiffs 

outside California, but continued to withhold information for any California-based 

FLSA Plaintiffs, contending, for the first time, it did not need to produce discovery 

responsive to these requests for any California-based employees because it has 

a valid res judicata defense based on the prior class settlement in Carranza v. 

Arctic Glacier, Case No. RG13692993.2 Arctic Glacier’s position, thus, resulted 

 

2

 Arctic Glacier takes issue with the Court’s statement that Arctic Glacier did not raise the res 

judicata argument as a basis for withholding discovery responsive to Interrogatory No. 2 and 

Request for Production No. 15 until after the Court ruled on the first discovery motion. [Doc. 

No. 30, p. 3.] Although Arctic Glacier has been consistent in its position the Carranza 

settlement may bar some or all of the California-based putative class members, nowhere in the 

Court record is there any indication that Arctic Glacier asserted this specific objection as a 

basis for withholding information or documents responsive to these two specific discovery 

requests until after the Court ruled on the parties’ first discovery motion.

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

in the filing of a second discovery motion on March 2, 2017. [Doc. No. 29.] The 

Court ruled on that motion on March 16, 2017, holding Arctic Glacier had waived 

a res judicata based objection because it was not timely asserted. [Id., p. 3, citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). It is this order that Arctic Glacier now requests the Court 

reconsider. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Although Arctic Glacier styles its filing as a “Request for Reconsideration,” it 

fails to meet the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7.1.i.1, which allows a party to 

apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for 

any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in 

whole or in part.” In pertinent part, the rule requires a party to show “what new or 

different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were 

not shown, upon such prior application.” CivLR 7.1.i.1.3 Artic Glacier fails to do 

so, and cites no legal authority whatsoever.

III. DISCUSSION

Arctic Glacier does not cite any new or different facts or circumstances. 

Instead, it argues that because the Court, as opposed to Hernandez, observed 

Arctic Glacier had failed to previously to make a res judicata based objection to 

Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production No. 15, it should reconsider its 

ruling. [Doc. No. 30, pp. 2-3.] No explanation is offered as to how this might have 

been an error on the Court’s part, nor does Arctic Glacier offer any legal basis to 

support its argument the Court should ignore the plain language of the Federal 

/ /

 

3

 Hernandez correctly maintains that Arctic Glacier failed to comply with CivLR 7.1.i.1’s 

affidavit requirement when it filed the motion. Instead, Arctic Glacier waited until Hernandez 

called attention to this deficiency and attempted to cure it by filing the affidavit when it filed its 

reply brief. Although Arctic Glacier’s motion is defective in this regard, the Court is not inclined 

to deny the motion solely on the basis of this procedural deficiency. 

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

Rules of Civil Procedure and long-established and clearly applicable legal 

precedent when not raised by a party. 

Arctic Glacier contends had Hernandez made the waiver argument, it 

would have been able to offer a counter argument. Id. The opportunity to offer a 

counter-argument, however, is not the same as the ability to offer a viable 

counter-argument. Essentially Arctic Glacier claims that because it has asserted 

the res judicata defense at other times throughout the case, such as in its 

Amended Answer, its Notice of Related Case, during the Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference, and in response to a completely separate interrogatory 

(No. 5), it did not waive the objection with respect to Interrogatory No. 2 and 

Document Request No. 15. Under Arctic Glacier’s analysis, somehow Hernandez 

and the Court should have divined from Arctic Glacier’s position, in combination 

with its blanket objections to each and every discovery request that they were 

“not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and 

“the burden and expense of the proposed discovery is disproportionate to the 

needs of the case,” that Arctic Glacier would be withholding information and 

documents regarding California-based FLSA Plaintiffs. Id. Arctic Glacier also 

contends it did not address its res judicata objection in connection with the first 

discovery motion because the argument was not addressed by Hernandez. Id.

This argument, albeit creative, runs counter to fundamental tenets of 

discovery, which provide each interrogatory must be responded to “separately 

and fully.” Fed. R. Civ .P. 33(b)(3). If an objection is asserted, the reasons for the 

objection “must be stated with specificity” in the response. Fed. R. Civ. P.

33(b)(4); see also Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 193 F.R.D. 94, 109 

(W.D. N.Y. 2000) (objection that interrogatories were “burdensome” overruled 

because objecting party failed to “particularize” basis for objection); Mancia v. 

Mayflower Textile Services Co., 253 F.R.D. 354, 357 (D. Md. 2008) (boilerplate 

objections waived any legitimate objections responding party may have had); 

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

Deere v. American Water Works Co., Inc., 306 F.R.D. 208, 215 (S.D. Ind. 2015) 

(“general objections are entitled to little if any weight.”) If required to make the 

objection understandable, the objecting party must state reasons for any 

objection. Chubb Integrated Sys. Ltd. v. National Bank of Wash.,103 F.R.D. 52, 

58 (D. D.C. 1984) (“irrelevant” did not fulfill party's burden to explain its 

objections.) “Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the 

court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4)

Similarly, in responding to a request for documents, a party asserting an 

objection must identify the specific document or evidence requested as to which 

the objection is made and “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the 

request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). The objection must 

also specifically state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on 

the basis of the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). When an objection applies 

only to a portion of the documents requested, the responding party must identify 

the materials being withheld and produce the remainder. Id. “Courts have found 

that failure to state any objections to the production of documents in a timely 

manner constitutes a waiver of any objections, similar to Rule 33, even though 

Rule 34 does not contain an automatic waiver provision.” Peskoff v. Faber, 244 

FRD 54, 64 (D. D.C. 2007).

The record is clear that Arctic Glacier did not assert a res judicata objection

in response to either Interrogatory No. 2 or Request for Production No. 15. 

Absent a showing of good cause, which Arctic Glacier has not even attempted to 

demonstrate, this constitutes a waiver. Arctic Glacier’s argument that it did not 

waive this objection by not arguing it in the first discovery motion ignores the fact 

the objection was waived before the filing of that motion, by its failure to timely 

assert it in the responses to Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production No. 

15.

/ /

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

Finally, the Court notes the motion for reconsideration is moot, as Arctic

Glacier indicates in its reply brief it has finally produced a full and complete 

response and documents. [Doc. No. 33.] Arctic Glacier states, without any 

explanation, the Court’s ruling “may serve as a basis for additional discovery 

whose burden and expense greatly outweighs any possible benefit, and that is 

not at all proportional to the needs of the case.” [Doc. No. 33.] The Court's “role is 

neither to issue advisory opinions nor to declare rights in hypothetical cases, but 

to adjudicate live cases or controversies consistent with the powers granted the 

judiciary in Article III of the Constitution.” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights 

Commission, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); See also Hall v. Beals, 

396 U.S. 45, 48, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214 (1969) (holding that an issue is 

moot when it has “lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that 

must exist if we are to avoid [rendering] advisory opinions on abstract 

propositions of law.”). As Arctic Glacier is no longer withholding information and 

documents responsive to Interrogatory No. 2 and Document Request No. 15,

there is no longer a live controversy regarding these discovery requests and the 

motion for reconsideration is moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Arctic Glacier’s motion for reconsideration is 

DENIED. The Court regretfully must take this opportunity to address Arctic

Glacier’s conduct in relation to the discovery at issue. Arctic Glacier’s disregard 

for the Court’s authority and limited resources has caused the filing of three 

separate motions, regarding the same two discovery requests, and unreasonably 

prolonged the discovery process. Although the Court has exercised considerable 

patience with Artic Glacier’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s order 

regarding the first discovery motion, and in addressing Arctic Glacier’s efforts to 

take a second and third bite at the proverbial apple, the Court’s patience has 

been exhausted. Partial compliance with orders is not an option. Arguments are 

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

15CV1938-L(JMA)

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

not to be raised in a piecemeal fashion, as Arctic Glacier did in the second 

discovery motion, and should be supported by applicable legal authority, which 

Arctic Glacier did not do in this motion for reconsideration. Arctic Glacier is 

cautioned any future disregard for the Court’s authority or abuse of judicial 

resources will not receive such lenient treatment. 

Dated: May 11, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01938-L-JMA Document 36 Filed 05/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8