Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SABAS ARRENDONDO, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DELANO FARMS CO., et al., ) 

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:09cv01247 LJO DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Document 26)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO QUASH

(Document 27)

On April 28 and 30, 2010, the parties filed the instant discovery motions. The motions

were heard on May 28, 2010, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate

Judge. Gregory Ramirez appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Sabas Arrendondo, Jose Cuevas,

Hilario Gomez, Irma Landeros and Rosalba Landeros, individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated (“Named Plaintiffs”). Michael Johnson appeared on behalf of Defendants

Delano Farms Co., Cal-Pacific Farm Management, L.P., and T&R Bangi’s Agricultural Services,

Inc. 

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2009, five Named Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants, alleging

causes of action under both federal and state law based on allegations that they were not

compensated for all time worked. The Named Plaintiffs are seasonal, agricultural workers who

worked in agricultural fields and packing sheds owned by Defendant Delano Farms. Defendants

Cal-Pacific Management and T&R Bangi are farm labor contractors working with Delano Farm

1

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 7
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

to provide its labor force. The agreement between the entities has always been an oral

agreement. 

The deadline to file a motion for class certification is August 10, 2010, and discovery is

currently limited to class certification issues. The Named Plaintiffs define the class as: 1

All persons who are employed or have been employed, and who have worked one or

more shifts as non-exempt hourly and/or piece rate workers for DELANO FARMS

COMPANY, CAL-PACIFIC FARM MANAGEMENT, L.P. AND/OR T&R BANGI AG

SERVICES, INC., in the State of California from four (4) years prior to the filing of this

action.

The Named Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on April 28, 2010. At issue are

Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, served on each Defendant in conjunction with

the January 19, 2010, Notices to Take the Deposition of Defendants’ Persons Most

Knowledgeable (“PMK”). The parties filed their joint statement on May 21, 2010.

Defendants filed the related motion to quash on April 30, 2010. Defendants seek to

quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on Monterey Insurance Company in connection with

the Notice of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Monterey Insurance. Defendants also seek

to quash the Subpoena to Testify served on Monterey Insurance in connection with the Notice of

Deposition of Monterey Insurance’s Person Most Knowledgeable. Plaintiffs filed their

opposition on May 14, 2010. Defendants did not file a reply.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,

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

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter.” 

From the information in the Joint Statement, it appeared that all discovery was limited to class certification

1

issues. At the hearing, however, Plaintiffs stated that only depositions were limited to certification issues.

Defendants did not object to this characterization.

2

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 7
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

B. Motion to Compel Production of Documents

1. Definition of Covered Employees as it Relates to Delano Farms- Numbers 

1-5, 8, 11-14, 16, 21-24

Defendants object to producing records for all covered employees, i.e., employees who

may fit the class definition, prior to the certification of a class. Despite Defendants’ objection, 2

such information is relevant to subclass issues during the class certification process. In fact,

Defendants confirmed that they will be opposing certification in part on the basis that the

assessment of each member is an intensely individual calculation. Information relating to all

potential class members will assist Plaintiffs in contesting this argument. Thus, to the extent the

Court does not specifically limit a response, Defendants shall produce responsive documents for

all potential class members. 

Defendants also argue that Delano Farms does not have to produce any documents

because it does not actually employ any of the Named Plaintiffs or any covered employee. 

Whether or not Delano Farms is an employer, the fact remains that it either has the requested

documents or it does not. Delano Farms is therefore required to respond to all interrogatories

identified by this order. If it does not have the requested documents, it shall so state.

With these standards in mind, the Court will address each individual request.

2. Requests Relating to Putative Class Members’ Time Records, Wages and

Reimbursement of Tools- Numbers 1, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 21

Defendants object to these requests, in part, as unduly burdensome based on their

employment of over 3,600 workers. Depending on how such records are stored, however, it may

not be as burdensome as Defendants suggest. At the hearing, counsel for Defendants confirmed

that beginning in either 2005 or 2006, the payroll system became computerized. Given that

records can be searched relatively easily on a computer, this request is not unduly burdensome.

Plaintiffs confirmed that the terms Covered Employee, Potential Class Member and Putative Class

2

Member share the same definition. The terms are used interchangeably throughout this order.

3

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 7
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

Number 1

To the extent that the requested information is stored on a computer, Defendants SHALL

produce the information for all covered employees. As to Defendant Delano Farms, this request

includes invoices, as well. 

Numbers 3 and 4

These requests are extraordinarily broad and Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED. 

Numbers 11 and 12

These requests are straightforward and should not be difficult to answer. Defendants

have identified eleven witness in their initial disclosures. Defendants’ counsel indicated that this

may be a complete disclosure. However, Defendants SHALL supplement these responses to

either provide additional responsive information or confirm that no further witnesses exist.

Number 21

Defendants have indicated that not all requested information exists. For example,

Defendants do not have electronic “swipe cards” or “key punch” codes used to log time. 

Nonetheless, the computer records may be responsive insofar as they show gross hours worked

and amounts paid. Defendants SHALL therefore produce responsive documents. Defendants

SHALL also (1) indicate whether the records produced are substantially similar to all records;

and (2) specify which records do not exist.

3. Request for Production Number 2

As discussed at the hearing, computer records produced for other requests will likely be

responsive to this request as well. Defendants SHALL therefore produce responsive documents.

4. Request for Production Numbers 5, 10, 13 and 14

Numbers 5, 10, 13, 14

These requests may also be answered by computer records produced for other requests. 

Defendants SHALL therefore produce responsive documents.

5. Request Number 6

This request, seeking all documents that Defendants claim may impeach the credibility of

any Named Plaintiff, is strikingly broad. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED.

4

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 7
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. Requests Numbers 7, 8, 16 and 17

For each of these requests, Defendants have indicated that they have produced all

responsive documents. Defendants SHALL therefore provide a statement that they have

produced all responsive documents in their custody, possession or control.

7. Request Number 9

This request seeks all documents supporting Defendants’ affirmative defenses. The

request is overly broad and Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED.

8. Request Number 15

Defendants have indicated that they have provided responsive documents for the five

Named Plaintiffs and the 52 identified employees. Defendants have further indicated that the

responsive documents are accurate samples of documents covering all potential class members. 

When Defendants can confirm this, they SHALL so state in a supplemental response.

9. Request Number 18

Number 18 seeks documents sufficient to establish Defendants’ profits earned since July

15, 2005. Plaintiffs contend that this information is relevant to examining the relationship

between the three Defendants. Defendants object to producing documents, arguing that

information related to profits is not relevant.

Indeed, the Court questions whether Defendants’ profits need to be disclosed. At the

hearing, Plaintiffs explained that information related to Defendants’ labor costs should allow

them to perform the necessary calculations. Defendants believe that the computer records

produced for other requests should allow Plaintiffs to calculate labor costs. Therefore, at this

time, the Court GRANTS this requests only to the extent that computer records produced will

allow Plaintiffs to make the necessary calculations. 

10. Requests Numbers 19 and 20

These requests seek information related to document compilation and retention policies. 

Defendants have agreed that they will produce responsive information to the extent such

information exists. The motion is therefore GRANTED.

5

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 5 of 7
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

11. Request Number 22

Number 22 seeks documents related to the criteria under which job performance is

evaluated for Covered Employees. Defendants have produced information relating to the Named

Plaintiffs and 52 other employees and object to providing information for all potential class

members. 

Plaintiffs explain that they seek this information to evaluate how the employees’

piecemeal rates are calculated. As it appears that this information can be deduced from the

produced records, Plaintiffs have agreed to accept Defendants’ production at this time. The

motion is therefore DENIED.

12. Request Numbers 23 and 24

These requests seek all documents provided to Covered Employees for their signature,

including documents acknowledging their receipt of tools. Plaintiffs indicated at the hearing that

they would accept responsive documents for the Named Plaintiffs and the 52 other employees,

along with a representation the documents are substantially similar to those for all potential class

members. Defendants SHALL therefore produce this information.

13. Request Numbers 25, 26, 27 and 28

Requests 25, 26, 27 and 28 seek documents relating to the relationship between

Defendants. Although all of the requests at issue in this motion were made in conjunction with

the noticed depositions and Defendants nonetheless provided responses to many, Defendants

now object to 25, 26, 27 and 28 solely on the basis that they are outside the scope of the 

depositions. The Court need not decide the issue, however, as Plaintiffs have indicated that they

will seek the information pursuant to Requests for Production of Documents. Indeed, the

requested information appears relevant and discoverable to the extent the documents relate to the

relationship between Defendants. 

C. Motion to Quash Subpoenas

Defendants seek to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum served on Monterey Insurance

Company in connection with the Notice of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Monterey

Insurance. Defendants also seek to quash the Subpoena to Testify served on Monterey Insurance

6

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 6 of 7
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

in connection with the Notice of Deposition of Monterey Insurance’s PMK.

The depositions went forward on May 3, 2010, and prior to the production of documents

by Monterey Insurance’s PMK, Defendants’ counsel redacted what he considered to be

confidential commercial information. Declaration of James E. Perero, ¶ 6.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the motion is moot except to the extent the issues

are affected by the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. The parties SHALL therefore

refer to this order to the extent necessary.

D. Sanctions

At the hearing, Plaintiffs made an oral request for sanctions, contending that Defendants’

delay tactics resulted in the expenditure of additional time and money to secure the requested

documents. The facts of the discovery process do not justify an award of sanctions, however, and

Plaintiffs’ request is therefore DENIED. F. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(5). 

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Defendants SHALL produce documents as ordered above within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of this order. Plaintiffs’ oral request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendants’ motion to

quash is DENIED AS MOOT EXCEPT to the extent the issues are impacted by the Court’s

ruling on the motion to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 2, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 7 of 7