Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829-20/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

*E-filed 3/22/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THOMAS LEONARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-00829 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO LIMIT DEPOSITION

SUBPOENA

Re: Docket No. 219

This putative class action for overtime wages and other wage-and-hour-related relief is

brought on behalf of current and former employees of defendants with the job title "Route Sales

Representative" ("RSR"). Plaintiffs now move to limit the scope of the deposition of one of

their expert witnesses, Michael Elliott.

BACKGROUND

Michael Elliot represents to this court that, in early December 2006, he saw a Bimbo

Bakeries USA (“BBU”) truck in a supermarket parking lot, and initiated a brief conversation

with an RSR who was loading products into his truck.

Elliott states that about two weeks later, he arranged a meeting with a different RSR. 

The goal was to observe the RSR’s normal work process to aid in deriving an expert opinion

about the feasibility of using the company’s handheld computers to record meal breaks. Elliott

watched the RSR inside a supermarket, had coffee with him during his break and talked about

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 272 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 5
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 Of course, these employees are members of the putative class.

2

the handheld computer, and walked with the RSR back to his vehicle. Elliott found a document

on the ground near the truck, a list of some kind, and the RSR offered to print out a similar one

inside his truck. The document he printed out is titled “Tomorrow’s Load Summary.” 

The parties recently filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs'

motion included an expert declaration by Elliott. Shortly after reading this expert declaration,

defense counsel wrote plaintiffs' counsel a letter accusing the lawyers, the expert, and the

employees who assisted the expert of wrongful conduct, and stating that "any RSR that

participated in delivering Company property and confidential information to a third party will

be disciplined for having violated Company policy." Defendants noticed Elliott's deposition. 

The deposition subpoena states that he must produce documents he inspected and/or relied on in

preparing his expert declaration. Plaintiffs believe full compliance would reveal the identities

of at least one, and possibly both, of the employees whom Elliott observed during his

investigation, because the "Tomorrow's Load Summary" document contains an RSR number

and other identifying information. After plaintiffs’ counsel informed defendants about the

print-out, defense counsel wrote back describing the “Tomorrow’s Load Summary” document

as “stolen property.” 

Plaintiffs now move: (1) for an order that Elliott is not required to produce to defendants

any documents or other things that directly or indirectly reveal the identity of the two abovementioned employees of defendants; (2) for an order modifying or limiting defendants'

deposition subpoena to the same effect; and (3) for an order that the deposition examination of

Elliott be limited in the same way, such that he not be required to answer any questions that

directly or indirectly reveal the identity of these two employees of defendants. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs' fundamental objection to the noticed scope of the deposition is that they want

to protect the identity of the RSRs who talked with Elliott.1

 Meanwhile, defendants urge the

court to deny the motion because “BBU has a right and need to know:

• what Elliott examined;

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 272 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 5
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

• how he gained access to customer databases;

• how he obtained information he was not authorized to have;

• who assisted in the improper investigations;

• what Elliott said to the RSR whom he accosted at work to mitigate any damage

Elliott did to the relationship between BBU and its employee;

• what stores Elliott visited to mitigate damages he may have caused to BBU’s

relationships with its customers and determine what Elliott viewed of its

customers’ confidential materials to protect the customers and educate them as to

what has occurred; and

• how Elliott could meet during ‘meal periods’ with RSRs who claim, is they are

precluded from taking them.” [sic]

Defendants make no attempt to explain how these topics are "relevant to the claim or

defense of any party" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Crucially, defendants cannot articulate

how knowledge of the RSR's identity or possession of the disputed document would confer any

unfair advantage on plaintiffs in this lawsuit. 

The court has reviewed the "Tomorrow's Load Summary" document in camera. The

document is a three-page list of products, with three columns (product numbers, product names,

and product quantities). No customer information appears (certainly no "customer database"). 

Despite trumpeting confidentiality as a prime concern, defendants have not shown that this

document is anything more than routine paperwork. Defendants assert that the document

reveals competitively valuable information. The court cannot conceive how this document, in

itself, could have any value to a competitor. Moreover, this lawsuit is about conditions of

employment, and has nothing to do with defendants' marketplace competitors. 

Next, there is no indication that Elliott relied on the document or intends to do so. Also,

the evidence indicates that the RSR offered the document to Elliott unsolicited. After in camera

review, it seems clear that this document would have little or no relevance to Elliott's technical

opinions about the adaptability of the handheld computers. 

The court notes the irony of defendants' professed goal, quoted above, of mitigating

"damage Elliott did to the relationship between BBU and its employee." BBU has made it clear

that identification of the employees would lead to punishment, not reconciliation.

The court concludes that defendants may question Elliott about what he saw and what he

learned about the actual subject matter of his expert testimony. Otherwise, the defendants'

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 272 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

proposed questioning ventures beyond the bounds of relevance to this litigation. Plaintiffs'

motion to limit the deposition is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/22/07 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 272 Filed 03/22/07 Page 4 of 5
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 SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Elizabeth Jean Carroll betsy.carroll@bingham.com, suga.ikeda@bingham.com 

Carolyn Blecha Hall carolyn.hall@bingham.com, jolyn.parker@bingham.com 

Wendy M. Lazerson wendy.lazerson@bingham.com 

Dennis Frank Moss jeanette@spiromoss.com 

Katherine J. Odenbreit , Mrs kodenbreit@smbhblaw.com, secretary@smbhblaw.com 

Kristen Pezone kristen.pezone@bingham.com 

Ira Spiro ispiro@smbhblaw.com 

Robert Ira Spiro ira@spiromoss.com, jeanette@spiromoss.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered under the Court's ECF system.

Dated: 3/22/07

 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 272 Filed 03/22/07 Page 5 of 5