Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180-46/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL VELIZ, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CINTAS CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 03-1180 RS (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S

INTERROGATORY RE: HOURS

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery letter, filed July 1, 2008. (Doc. #875.) 

In the letter, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond to the following

interrogatory: "State each work week as to which you contend you were entitled to be, but were not,

compensated at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work

performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week."

Under § 11(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, "Every employer subject to any provision of

this Act . . . or of any order issued under this Act . . . shall make, keep, and preserve such records of

the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of

employment maintained by him . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). Thus, while an employee who brings suit

under the Fair Labor Standards Act "has the burden of proving that he performed work for which he

was not properly compensated," Anderson v. Mt. Clems Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-87 (1946),

"[d]ue regard must be given to the fact that it is the employer who has the duty under § 11(c) of the

Act to keep proper records . . . and who is in position to know and to produce the most probative

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 893 Filed 07/17/08 Page 1 of 2
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

facts concerning the nature and amount of work performed. Id. at 687.

Here, Plaintiffs state that they have responded to Defendant's prior discovery with their best

recollection of the overtime hours that they worked. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's

request for any further response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2008 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 893 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 2