Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04181/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04181-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 10/24/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MOHIT NARAYAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EGL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-04181 RMW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO COMPEL

In this class action plaintiffs allege various statutory violations stemming from

defendant's alleged misclassification of its California pick-up and delivery drivers as

"independent contractors" rather than "employees." Plaintiffs are drivers; defendant ("EGL") is

in the freight transport business. The suit has been divided into three phases. It is now in Phase

One, which focuses on the claims of the three individual plaintiffs. The discovery cut-off for

Phase One is November 10, 2006. Plaintiffs move to compel EGL (1) to produce documents;

(2) to amend its responses to plaintiffs' first set of requests for production in order to provide

unambiguous and full responses; and (3) to provide an adequate privilege log. The motion is

GRANTED, to the extent that plaintiffs' requests have not been withdrawn.

///

///

///

Case 5:05-cv-04181-RMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/06 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 In their Reply, plaintiffs withdrew their requests for an order requiring further

responses to requests 49, 50, 61, 64, 65, 72 and 73.

2

1. Production of Documents

Plaintiffs assert that EGL has promised on multiple occasions to produce documents

responsive to plaintiffs' first set of requests for production, which was served in February. EGL

states that it is working diligently to complete its production, and therefore contends that this

part of the motion is moot. Plaintiffs are not satisfied and seek an order that EGL must

conclude its document production by October 31, 2006. The court ORDERS EGL to complete

production of the documents it has promised to produce, by October 31, 2006.

2. Responses to Requests for Production

Only one response remains in dispute.1 The parties dispute plaintiffs' right to production

of documents responsive to request number 29: 

All documents relied upon, referred to, and/or reviewed by EGL 

in preparation of making the representation at approximately page 

10 of its 2004 10-K filing with the United States Securities and 

Exchange Commission that "[t]he Internal Revenue Service, state 

authorities and other third parties have at times successfully asserted 

that independent owners/operators in the transportation industry, 

including those of the type we use in connection with your local 

pick up and delivery operations, are 'employees' rather than 

'independent contractors.'"

Plaintiffs argue that the documents are relevant because they relate to the primary affirmative

defense asserted by EGL, that plaintiffs are independent contractors as a matter of law. 

(Plaintiffs offer to accept, for now, documents that are redacted for the protection of third-party

privacy interests.) EGL contends that the documents it "relied on, referred to, and/or

reviewed... in preparation" for including this one sentence in an SEC filing are not relevant to

this litigation, or at best they are only minimally relevant. EGL argues that its decision to state

in its SEC filing the simple fact that EGL is aware that owner-operators have been found to be

employees and not independent contractors in other proceedings involving other parties and

other fact patterns has no relevance to the issue of whether the three named plaintiffs in this

case have been properly classified as independent contractors. Essentially, EGL contends that

this phase of the litigation turns on the facts pertaining to the jobs performed by the three named

Case 5:05-cv-04181-RMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/06 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

plaintiffs, and that other similar situations can have no relevance to these facts. Plaintiffs

respond that the quoted sentence, and the immediate context of the sentence in the SEC filing,

show that there is a clear connection between EGL's research of other companies and the status

of EGL's own drivers. Particularly relevant would be any comparative analysis by EGL of

various company policies. 

The court agrees with plaintiffs that documents responsive to request 29 are

discoverable. EGL's analysis of the employee versus independent contractor issue might have

affected EGL's policies towards the named plaintiffs, and therefore discovery of the research

made in preparation of this SEC filing is at least reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of evidence relevant to this phase of the litigation. The court ORDERS EGL to produce all

responsive documents by October 31, 2006. Documents may be redacted to protect legitimate

third-party privacy interests.

3. Privilege Log

Plaintiffs request an order compelling an amended privilege log. EGL's privilege log

contains only two entries, with the second entry described generally as "in-house counsel's

working file." EGL states that it is working diligently to provide plaintiffs with an amended

privilege log, and therefore contends that this part of the motion is moot. Plaintiffs are not

satisfied and seek an order to compel.

"[B]oilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34 request

for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege." Burlington Northern &

Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1148

(9th Cir. 2005). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) requires a party to claim a privilege expressly and

describe the nature of the documents not produced in a manner that will enable other parties to

assess the applicability of the privilege or protection, without revealing information itself

privileged or protected. There apparently was some discussion between the parties about a

compromise involving a categorical privilege log, rather than a document-by-document listing. 

Although categorical descriptions of privileged documents may be appropriate in situations

where the volume of privileged documents is demonstrably large, here EGL has made no effort

Case 5:05-cv-04181-RMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/06 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

to describe the volume of documents in the "in-house counsel's working file," nor has it given

the court a picture of the categorical scheme that might be employed. Nor has EGL sought a

protective order from the court allowing a nontraditional privilege log. Therefore, the court

ORDERS that a privilege log must be produced by October 31, 2006 that lists, for each

document withheld on grounds of privilege or work-product protection: (1) the general nature of

the document; (2) the identity and position of the author(s); (3) the date it was written; (4) the

identity and position of all addressees and recipients; (5) the document's present location; and

(6) the privilege claimed. Attachments should be listed separately from the documents to which

they are attached.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/24/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-04181-RMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/06 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:

Heather Burror hburror@akingump.com, dpaytonmoore@akingump.com 

Lorraine Grindstaff lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com 

Aaron D. Kaufmann kaufmann@hinton-law.com, schmitz@hinton-law.com;

nevrela@hinton-law.com 

Karen J. Kubin kkubin@akingump.com, dpaytonmoore@akingump.com 

David Philip Pogrel pogrel@hinton-law.com 

Jules Sandford jsandford@pfslaw.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 10/24/06

 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-04181-RMW Document 35 Filed 10/24/06 Page 5 of 5