Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04344/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04344-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:12-cv-04344-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMENDING ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BALJINDER RAI et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTA CLARA VALLEY

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; and

DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:12-cv-04344-PSG 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

AMENDING ORDER REGARDING 

SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES

(Re: Docket Nos. 180, 205)

This is a wage-and-hour class action. Plaintiffs claim Defendant Santa Clara Valley 

Transportation Authority has failed to properly compensate a class of over 1,000 bus and light rail 

operators, across ten different categories of activities, for a period from August 17, 2009 to the 

present.1 

 

1

See Docket No. 36 at 11-15. 

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 219 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.: 5:12-cv-04344-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMENDING ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES

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

For the Northern District of California

On June 6, 2014, the court ordered that the parties submit a stipulated schedule for any 

discovery required once the court ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.2 On August 2, 

2013, the court conditionally certified a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.3 On 

February 24, 2015, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.4 Consistent with the 

June 6 order, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order setting a variety of postcertification deadlines up through and including trial.5

 On March 24, 2015, the court entered the 

order as proposed.6

One of the deadlines set was a September 18, 2015 post-certification fact discovery 

deadline.7 Another was an October 15, 2015 deadline for submitting any dispute over the 

acceptable margin of error and sample size of class members to be deposed or called to trial for 

purposes of extrapolating damages based on the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Richard Drogin.8 

As these deadlines rapidly approach, and in light of discovery requests first served by VTA on May 

12, 2015 (nearly three years into this case), the parties find themselves unable to agree on whether 

and to what extent Defendants are entitled to the full discovery they seek.

The court is persuaded that VTA is entitled to further discovery. “Parties may obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense ̶ 

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or 

 

2

See Docket No. 132.

3

See Docket No. 65 at 1-2.

4

See Docket No. 171.

5

See Docket No. 178 at 2:27-3:2.

6

See Docket No. 180.

7

See id. at 3:20.

8

See id. at 3:13-17.

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 219 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.: 5:12-cv-04344-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMENDING ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES

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

For the Northern District of California

other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable 

matter.”9 Broad access to discovery is supported by the principle that “wide access to relevant 

facts serves the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for the 

truth.”10 At the same, individualized discovery is rarely appropriate in FLSA collective actions,11

or class actions.12 And an eleventh-hour rush of discovery requests imposes a real, and to a 

substantial degree, unfair burden on Plaintiffs.

To balance these considerations, the court GRANTS VTA’s motion, but only IN PART, as 

follows:

1. No later than September 9, 2015, each named class representative shall respond to 

VTA’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, VTA’s Requests for Admissions, VTA’s Request for 

Production of Documents, Set One, and document requests served with notices of the class 

representatives’ depositions.

2. No later than September 30, 2015, each of the up to 30 randomly sampled class action 

members previously noticed shall appear for a deposition of up to two hours. At today’s hearing, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that Plaintiffs’ own expert Mr. Drogin agreed that 30 members is the 

appropriate sample size.13 

 

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

10 Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993).

11 See, e.g., Prentice v. Fund for Pub. Interest Research, Inc., Case No. No. 06-cv-7776-SC, 2007 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71122 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007)

12 See, e.g., On the House Syndication, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 203 F.R.D. 452, 455 (S.D. 

Cal. 2001).

13 Cf. Helmert v. Butterball, LLC, Case No. 4:08-CV-00342-JLH, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143134, 

at *4 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 5, 2010) (“[R]epresentative discovery, which involves individualized 

discovery from a representative sample of class members, consistently has been permitted in FLSA 

actions.” ) (citing numerous cases); Reed v. County of Orange, 716 F. Supp. 2d 876, 878 (C.D. Cal. 

2010) (“After the Court conditionally granted class certification, the Court randomly selected 200 

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 219 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.: 5:12-cv-04344-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMENDING ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES

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

For the Northern District of California

3. Each of three additional “opt-in” members selected by VTA shall appear for a deposition 

of up to two hours. Each such party has “freely chosen to participate” and should have information 

relevant to their own claims, as well as VTA’s defenses.14

In addition, the court amends the March 24 order15 as follows:

1. The deadlines for submitting a stipulation regarding the acceptable margin of error, the 

necessary sample size and the deadline for alternatively identifying any disputed issue for the court 

to resolve are vacated. The court will consider any such disputes as part of any Daubert

challenges. Daubert motions shall be heard no later than November 17, 2015 at 1:30 PM.

2. The deadline for the hearing of any dispositive or partially dispositive motion and any 

decertification motion or any motion regarding class composition is November 17, 2015 at 1:30

PM. VTA shall present these issues, if at all, in a single motion not exceeding 25 pages.

3. The deadline for post-certification fact discovery is reset to September 30, 2015. 

4. The deadline for post-certification expert discovery is reset to October 14, 2015. 

5. The final pretrial conference is reset to November 24, 2015 at 10:00 AM.

6. Trial is reset to December 7, 2015 at 9:30 AM.

SO ORDERED.

 

Sample Plaintiffs to be deposed, and the parties deposed 135 deputies.”); Mister v. Illinois C. G. R. 

Co., 790 F. Supp. 1411, 1420-21 (S.D. Ill. 1992) (“The Special Master has approved a sampling 

method to conduct discovery on this issue. Essentially, Master Meites has authorized discovery 

depositions with a random sample of the class.”); Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062, 1065 (3d 

Cir.1988) (sample group of 51 randomly selected from the thirteen hundred persons who opted in); 

Nelson v. Am. Standard, Inc., Case Nos. 2:07-CV-10-TJW-CE, 2:08-CV-390-TJW-CE, 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 113448, at *9-10 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2009) (limiting discovery to named plaintiffs and 

randomly selected seven percent of opt-in class of FLSA party plaintiffs); Kohen v. Pac. Inv. 

Mgmt. Co. LLC & PIMCO Funds, 571 F.3d 672, 679 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that defendant can 

“depose a random sample of class members” for a motion to decertify the class).

14 Krueger v. New York Tel. Co., 163 F.R.D. 446, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

15 See Docket No. 180.

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 219 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.: 5:12-cv-04344-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL AND AMENDING ORDER 

REGARDING SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES

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

For the Northern District of California

Dated: August 25, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 219 Filed 08/25/15 Page 5 of 5