Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00420/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00420-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEATRIZ ALDAPA and ELMER AVALOS, 

on behalf of themselves and others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., a 

California Corporation; AG FORCE, LLC; a 

California Limited Liability Company; 

FOWLER MARKETING 

INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00420-DAD-SAB

ORDER RE STIPULATION TO 

CONTINUE DATE FOR FILING OF 

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION

(ECF No. 104) 

The parties, through their respective counsel, seek a Court Order continuing the due date

for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification, currently due on or before August 31, 

2016. See Dok. 80 (Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Class 

Certification). The bases for the request to continue the due date and the stipulation are the 

following:

1. Pursuant to the Court's Order (Dok. 96), Defendants were to provide electronic payroll 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 105 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

and time records for 25% of the class, and the corresponding raw data (hard copy crew sheet and 

payroll data) for 10% of the class by May 20 and June 6, respectively. Dok. 96 (Order Re 

Stipulation Re Production Of Electronic Records and Underlying Raw Data). 

2. Defendants sought in good faith to comply with the Court Order, but because they were 

working with a third-party (Datatech) which had the electronic records, various issues arose with 

respect to the production of records. Thus, Plaintiffs were not provided with the names of the 

corresponding individuals whose raw data and corresponding crew sheets had been produced

until June 10. Without that information, Plaintiffs could not begin their analysis or cross 

reference the accuracy of the electronic data, as recognized by the Court.

3. On June 30, after substantial investment of time by both Plaintiffs and their consultants

analyzing the data, Plaintiffs informed Defendants that the electronic records produced only 

contained weekly pay and time summaries, rather than daily work records. Plaintiffs therefore 

requested the daily work records. The daily work records are critical to Plaintiffs' ability to 

review and analyze claims concerning whether or not violations took place on a daily basis, 

including whether or not there are violations for failing to pay for rest periods during piece rate 

work, and the occurrence/non-occurrence of improper time keeping and off-the-clock work. 

4. Defendants informed Plaintiffs they would look into the issue and follow up with the 

third party, Datatech. After some follow up emails regarding what was missing and what was 

needed, Plaintiffs received from Defendants what was represented to be the daily electronic 

records on July 13. However, after a considerable amount of time spent with the data, again by 

Plaintiffs and their consultants, Plaintiffs soon discovered this electronic data was also

incomplete. On July 20, Plaintiffs provided a detailed summary of the outstanding issues. In 

particular, Plaintiffs noted that it appeared that daily information was entirely missing for 1221 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 105 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

employees, and that the daily data does not have any daily values prior to December 26, 2012

(even though the class period begins in March 2011).

5. Again Defendants in good faith sought to correct this error by going back to the thirdparty (Datatech) and requesting that the information be supplemented. On August 1, Defendants 

produced to Plaintiffs what they believe to be "updated data from Datatech with all of the daily 

data." Plaintiffs and their consultants are currently reviewing whether this resolves all the issues 

with the electronic data, but as of now there may still be unresolved issues with the data. For 

example, to Plaintiffs it appears that approximately twenty-five percent of the workers in the new 

daily work records have 10 days or less of work. This may be a production error because to 

Plaintiffs it does not seem possible that one-quarter of the employees have careers of less than 

ten days with the company. Plaintiffs are working to compile a list of those workers with only 

10 days of work or less, so that the production can be verified with Defendants and the third 

party record company, Datatech. 

6. The Defendants have been working in good faith with Plaintiffs to supplement or correct 

any production deficiencies, but many of the identified errors have been outside the control of 

the Defendants.

7. The June 6, 2016 records production date ordered by the Court and the August 31, 2016 

deadline to file the class certification motion would have provided Plaintiffs with roughly 12 

weeks of time to review and analyze voluminous pay and time records. However, due to the 

production errors identified above, Plaintiffs still may not have all the records ordered by the 

Court's May 17, 2016 Order. The parties anticipate cooperating to verify and ensure that 

Plaintiffs have the data that was ordered by the Court. If this stipulation is granted, and 

assuming full production of data occurs this week, Plaintiffs will have roughly 8 weeks to 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 105 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 5
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

analyze and review the data.

Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that it would be appropriate to extend the 

deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion by 30 days, with a new due date of 

October 1, 2016.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Dated: August 3, 2016

MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, 

APLC

By: s/ Mario Martinez .

Mario Martinez

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Dated: August 3, 2016

BUSH GOTTLIEB

By: s/ Ira L. Gottlieb .

Ira L. Gottlieb

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Dated: August 3, 2016

SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC

By: s/ Howard Sagaser .

Howard A. Sagaser

Ian B. Wieland

Attorneys for Defendants, FOWLER PACKING 

CO., INC., FOWLER MARKETING 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and AG FORCE, LLC

ORDER

Having reviewed the stipulation by the parties through their respective counsel, the Court 

hereby approves the stipulation and extends the due date for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for 

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 105 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Class Certification. Plaintiffs may file their Motion for Class Certification on or before October 

1, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB Document 105 Filed 08/03/16 Page 5 of 5