Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 amended complaint now includes several named plaintiffs; however, for

convenience, they are here referred to in the singular as "Plaintiff" or "David Ho."

2

 [Docket No. 59].

*E-filed 8/8/07*

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 DAVID HO, et al.

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,

Defendant. /

Case No. C05-04867 JF (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Docket No. 77

In this putative class action, named plaintiff David Ho1 contends that his employer,

Ernst & Young ("E & Y"), improperly treated him and other employees as "professionals"

exempt from California's overtime laws. The current scope of discovery is limited to that

which is relevant to the class certification. Plaintiff now moves to compel production of four

items related to time and activity records (a.k.a. "TRAX" records) produced pursuant to a prior

order of this court ("May 9 Order").2 

1. Employee Names

The TRAX records contain employee identification numbers, but no names. Thus,

Plaintiff seeks an index matching the names of employees to the identification numbers. He

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 92 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 6
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

argues that the index is needed so that Plaintiff's counsel may question defense and class

witnesses about particular TRAX entries. E & Y offers to produce a limited list of names,

excluding those putative class members who are currently employed by Defendant and those

who elected to not be contacted by Plaintiff's counsel in response to the parties' joint notice. 

Defendant argues for exclusion because current employees know their identification numbers

and can voluntarily disclose them and because Plaintiff does not need names of employees that

he cannot contact or question. 

The party resisting relevant, non-privileged discovery has the burden of showing why

discovery should not go forward. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.

1975). This court has already ruled that putative class members' TRAX records are relevant to

the issue of class certification (regardless of whether those individuals requested to not be

contacted). What Plaintiff seeks here is little more than an index necessary to de-code these

records. Moreover, Defendant has shown no burden in producing such a list. Accordingly,

Plaintiff's motion with respect to the production of an employee names index is GRANTED. 

This ruling does not change the fact that Plaintiff's counsel may not contact those putative class

members who have elected not to be contacted. E&Y shall produce that information within ten

days of the date of this order. 

2. Task I.D. information

Plaintiff also moves to compel an index which explains the activities associated with the

task identification numbers used in some of the TRAX activity description entries. E&Y agrees

to produce such an index. Therefore, on this point, Plaintiff's motion is moot.

3. Identification of Engagement and Client Names

The May 9 Order, granting Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel, noted, "If defendant,

despite the protective order, is queasy about releasing client names to plaintiff, it may redact the

names." At that time, Plaintiff did not object to this proposed redaction. However, after

realizing that many of the TRAX entries contain no description of employee activities, Plaintiff

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 92 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 6
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

 For example, suggests Plaintiff, class members may recall that on the “Smith

engagement” they spent all of their time photocopying documents. If the client engagement

code for the “Smith engagement” is known, the TRAX records will show how much time a

class member spent on that project. Therefore, even if the work description entry is blank,

Plaintiff may be able to determine the number of hours spent photocopying. 

4 E &Y declares that, even with the strict protective order in place, it chose to spend

more than $150,000 reviewing and manually redacting client names from more than two

million time entries. Knopp Decl. ¶ 7. 

3

now seeks disclosure of "client engagement information." According to Ho, this information is

necessary because class members are likely to remember their work activities based upon the

particular client engagements.3

 There are two (potentially intertwined) groups of information

within the category of client engagement information: engagement names (i.e., project names,

which might incorporate client names) and client names. Plaintiff seeks both.

E & Y offers to produce an index of engagement names only - with client names

redacted. Defendant argues that this issue was decided in the May 9 Order and, in reliance on

that order, E & Y expended substantial resources.4

 Defendant acknowledges that the

relationship between E & Y and its clients is often a matter of public record, but contends that

the details of the work done for those clients are not. E & Y also argues that Plaintiff should

not be permitted to reverse his position now, when he was aware of the potential for lacking

detail in the TRAX entries prior to Defendant's redaction efforts. Specifically, Defendant points

to Ho's own TRAX record which contains a large number of vague work activity entries. 

Because Defendant had previously been granted leave to do so, and because no change

in circumstances since that time warrants reversal, Plaintiff's motion as it pertains to the

disclosure of client names is DENIED. However, Plaintiff's motion as to the production of

"engagement information" or "engagement names" is GRANTED (Defendant may redact client

names if it chooses). E&Y shall respond to this request within ten days of the date of this

order. 

4. Non-TRAX Time and Activity Records

Finally, Plaintiff requests production of time and activity records separate from the

TRAX records. While working on certain audit engagements, putative class members entered

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 92 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 6
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

5

 This estimate, provided at oral argument, is a departure from Defendant's papers

which indicated that each audit file would need to be reviewed manually, requiring one to

two hours per file review.

6

 In the very unlikely scenario that Defendant is unable to locate 100 spreadsheets

(after an exhaustive database search), E & Y shall produce all responsive records located and

file a declaration explaining the measures used to search and the reason for the lesser

production.

4

their time and details of their work activities into spreadsheets which became part of audit files. 

These were created largely to compare the time spent on projects with the billing rates, so that E

& Y could determine if increased charges should be sought. Plaintiff argues that these

documents should have already been produced pursuant to the May 9 Order compelling

production of class members' time and activity records. 

Defendant says that locating these spreadsheets would be extremely burdensome

because they were used only sporadically on audit engagements and are maintained in the files

for the particular engagement to which they applied. According to E & Y, it would have to

review the individual files of over 6,000 audit engagements and each file review would require

roughly ten minutes.5

 Therefore, E & Y offered to produce a sample of responsive

spreadsheets (with client names redacted) from 100 randomly-selected audit engagements files. 

Plaintiff contends that the production burden claimed by Defendant is overstated and

emphasizes the importance of these documents. According to Ho, the TRAX entries from E &

Y's largest department - the auditing department - contain very few work activity descriptions. 

These documents fall within the category of class members' time and activity records for

which this court has already deemed relevant and compelled production. However, the court is

sensitive to the production burden on Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion with respect

to these Non-TRAX time and activity records is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall

produce a total of 100 time and activity spreadsheets created for various audit engagements.6

The spreadsheets produced shall be a representative sample of such records, originating from

offices across California and spanning the relevant time frame. E & Y may elect to redact client

names from the production. Defendant shall produce the responsive records within fourteen

days of the date of this order. 

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 92 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/8/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 92 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Catherine A. Conway cconway@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com 

Leon Greenberg wagelaw@aol.com 

Gregory William Knopp gknopp@akingump.com, dkucko@akingump.com 

Seth Adam Spiewak aspiewak@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com 

Mark R. Thierman laborlawyer@pacbell.net, kellyann@callatg.com; thier3@callatg.com;

thier4@callatg.com; thier6@callatg.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up for efiling.

Dated: 8/8/07 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 92 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 6