Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01932/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01932-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

EDUARDO CHAVEZ, individually

and on behalf of a class of others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

WIS HOLDINGS CORP., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-1932 L (NLS)

ORDER RESOLVING JOINT

MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Dkt. No. 264.)

Currently pending before this Court is the parties’ joint motion for determination

of a discovery dispute. (Dkt. No. 264.) This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)

collective action, and there are at least 3,600 opt-in plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 264 at 13.) In

mapping out a joint discovery plan, the parties agreed to limit discovery to thirty

representative opt-in plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 264-1 ¶ 2.) Defendants have noticed the

depositions of twenty-seven of the opt-in plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 264-2 ¶ 3.) Five of these

plaintiffs have not been in contact with their counsel, despite counsel’s efforts, and have

not appeared at a deposition. (Dkt. Nos. 264; 264-2 ¶ 6.) Defendants seek to compel the

depositions of these five plaintiffs, and if they do not appear, defendants seek their

dismissal from this action. (Dkt. No. 264 at 12.)

The FLSA allows an employee to bring a collective action against an employer on

behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees. 28 U.S.C. § 216(b). Unlike

1 07-CV-1932 L (NLS)

Case 3:07-cv-01932-L-NLS Document 265 Filed 05/20/13 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

a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, a plaintiff that wishes to be included in a

collective action must opt-in by filing written consent with the court. § 216(b). Further,

the FLSA does not define the term “similarly situated,” leaving the court to determine

whether a collective action is appropriate. See Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242

F.R.D. 530, 536 (N.D. Cal. 2007); see also Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., 235

F.R.D. 474, 481 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

A majority of district courts have adopted a two-step certification process for

collective actions. Adams, 242 F.R.D. at 536. First, the court considers whether the

proposed class should be given notice of the action, and in most cases, conditionally

certifies the class upon a minimal showing that the members of the proposed class are

similarly situated. See e.g., Abubakar v. City of Solano, No. CIV S-06-2268 LKK EFB,

2008 WL 508911, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008). Once discovery is complete, the party

opposing certification may then move to decertify the class. Id. 

While defendants are entitled to information about opt-in plaintiffs to determine if

the proposed class is similarly situated, see e.g., Oropeza v. AppleIllinois, LLC, No. 06 C

7097, 2010 WL 3034247, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2010); Ingersoll v. Royal &

Sunalliance, USA, Inc., No. C05-1774-MAT, 2006 WL 2091097, at *2 (W.D. Wa. Jul.

25, 2006), there is a difference of opinion about the scope and extent of discovery

allowed in FLSA collective actions. See e.g., Orpeza, 2010 WL 3034247, at *4. Some

courts treat opt-in plaintiffs as ordinary party plaintiffs, subject to the full range of

discovery. See e.g., Ingersoll, 2006 WL 2091097 (authorizing discovery of 34 opt-in

plaintiffs); Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc., No. CV03-05865TJHMCX, 2004 WL 2601180

(C.D. Ca. Oct. 25, 2004) (authorizing discovery of 306 opt-in plaintiffs); Krueger v. New

York Telephone Co., 163 F.R.D. 446 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (authorizing discovery of 162 optin plaintiffs). 

In contrast, other courts have held the same standard governing discovery in Rule

23 class actions should be applied to conditionally certified FLSA actions, and discovery

should be limited to class-wide and class based discovery. See e.g., Adkins v. Mid2 07-CV-1932 L (NLS)

Case 3:07-cv-01932-L-NLS Document 265 Filed 05/20/13 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

American Growers, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 171 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Still others have limited

individualized discovery to a certain number or percentage of the opt-in plaintiffs,

recognizing the costs and impracticality of conducting discovery person-by-person. See

e.g., Cranney v. Carriage Services, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-1587-RLH-PAL, 2008 WL

2457912 (D. Nev. Jun. 16, 2008) (limiting discovery to 10 percent of opt-in plaintiffs);

Smith v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 354 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (limiting

discovery to a statistically significant representative sampling of opt-in plaintiffs). 

The parties in this case have agreed to conduct representative discovery, and have

agreed that defendants are to select the individuals they wish to depose. This Court is of

the opinion that a party who has chosen to opt-in to a collective action has an obligation

to participate in the litigation, if necessary. Such a plaintiff has “freely chosen to

participate,” and there is no indication that these plaintiffs do not have “relevant

information with respect to the claims and defenses in this action.” Krueger, 163 F.R.D.

at 449. Plaintiffs’ argument that defendants must demonstrate that these five plaintiffs

are unique in some way is unavailing. They have agreed to allow defendants to select

thirty deponents, and defendants have made their selections. It is now incumbent upon

plaintiffs to produce the desired witnesses.

The Court limits this ruling to the circumstances of this case and does not reach the

larger question of whether, absent the agreement between the parties to limit discovery,

defendants would be entitled to depose all 3,600 plaintiffs in this action. Such a question

involves other considerations that need not be addressed at this time.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel the depositions of Randall Catlett, Michelle

Ellis, Daniel Naused, Aquita Sisson, and Christopher Underwood, is

GRANTED. Defendant shall re-notice these depositions following the

guidelines set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. If any of these witnesses fail to appear at their deposition, defendants may

file a motion in front of the District Judge for their dismissal from this

3 07-CV-1932 L (NLS)

Case 3:07-cv-01932-L-NLS Document 265 Filed 05/20/13 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

action.

3. The parties are to proceed with the remainder of the noticed depositions. If

the five aforementioned plaintiffs do not appear for their depositions and it is

apparent that five more depositions are required, defendants may select five

additional plaintiffs to depose. This Court may consider a motion to extend

the fact discovery deadline if necessary; however, defendants will be

required to demonstrate good cause for the additional depositions and for an

extension of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2013

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

4 07-CV-1932 L (NLS)

Case 3:07-cv-01932-L-NLS Document 265 Filed 05/20/13 Page 4 of 4