Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00644/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00644-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1

2

3

4

ci§ i s xTM &r% »•.«.

5 MAR 1 0 2017

6

/T^g- DEPUTY 7 BY “f¥S

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

ERIK KELLGREN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

12 Case No.: 3:13cv644L(KSC)

13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT

MOTION REGARDING

DEFENDANTS’ COLLECTION OF

ELECTRONICALLY STORED

INFORMATION, TO COMPEL THE

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND INFORMATION, AND FOR AN

IN-PERSON CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs,

14

v. 15

PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.;

PETCO HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1

to 100, inclusive,

16

17

18 Defendants.

19

20 [Doc. No. 183]

21

Before the Court is a Joint Motion Regarding Defendants’ Collection of

Electronically Stored Information, to Compel the Production of Documents and

Information, and for an In-Person Conference. [Doc. No. 183.] In the Joint Motion,

plaintiffs seek an order compelling defendants to provide further responses to

interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Plaintiffs also seek an order

compelling defendants to produce all relevant documents in response to its requests for

production of documents. Finally, plaintiffs request an in-person discovery conference

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 26
1 with the Court to discuss a number of discovery issues. For the reasons addressed more

thoroughly below, the Joint Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Doc.

No. 183.]

2

3

4 I. BACKGROUND

This is a collective action in which plaintiffs Erik Kellgren (“Kellgren”) and others

employed as Assistant Managers in defendants’ stores claim to have been misclassified as

“exempt” from the overtime provisions ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,29 U.S.C.

§ 201, et seq. (“FLSA”). The central issues in the case relate to the duties plaintiffs

performed in the course oftheir employment, and whether they worked over forty hours a

week during the relevant time frame.

On September 3, 2015, the Court conditionally certified a collective action

consisting of: “All persons residing in the United States (except California) who are

formerly or currently employed by Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. as an assistant manager at

any time from March 19,2010 to the present.” [Doc. No. 78, at p. 11.] A Second Amended

Scheduling Order (hereinafter “Scheduling Order”), filed on November 18,2016, gives the

parties until August 2, 2017 to complete fact discovery. [Doc. No. 184, at p. 1.] The

Scheduling Order also provides that any pretrial motions, including decertification and

final certification ofthe collective action, must be filed by September 15,2017. Id. at p. 3.

The instant Joint Motion was filed by the parties on November 17, 2016, and

concerns: (1) plaintiffs’ request for an in-person conference with the Court; (2) plaintiffs’

motion to compel regional and corporate e-mail; and (3) plaintiffs’ motion to compel

further responses to certain interrogatories and requests for production in plaintiffs’ third

set ofinterrogatories and requests for production (hereinafter “RFP 3”).

II. DISCUSSION

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), as amended, provides in relevant part as

26 follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of

the case, considering the importance ofthe issues at stake in the action,

27

28

2

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 26
1 the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant

information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense ofthe proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

2

3

4

A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information

from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible

because ofundue burden or cost.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). “The court may, for good cause, issue

an orderto protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

5

6

7

8

9

10

A. Plaintiffs’ Request for an In-Person Conference with the Court. 11

12 Plaintiffs request an “in-person conference with the Court to discuss a number of

discovery disputes that have reached such a mass that it would appear most effiacious [sic]

and sensible to address them in person, including .. . (1) the scope of, and methodology

for, Defendants’ collection, search and production of electronically stored information

(“ESI”), including e-mails; and (2) [p]laintiffs motion to compel [defendants to produce

documents and information responsive to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories and

Request for Production ofDocuments. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 11.] Defendants do not oppose

plaintiffs’ request for an in-person discovery conference, but suggest that plaintiffs first

provide a written list ofthe specific issues in advance ofthe conference. [Doc. No. 183, at

p. 43.] Defendants assert that “[w]hile plaintiff listed numerous items that they seek to

have the Court address at a conference, the topics are general. Plaintiffs do not identify the

reliefthey seek, and Petco is not even aware there is a dispute as to several ofthe items.”

Id. Here, the Court finds that an in-person discovery conference is not necessary to resolve

the instant discovery dispute as the parties have submitted sufficient briefing on the issues

in dispute. The parties filed over eighty pages of briefing, excluding exhibits, regarding

their respective positions. [Doc. No. 183.] Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for an in-person

discovery conference at this time is DENIED.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 26
1 B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Regional and Corporate E-mail.

2

Plaintiffs assert that “a core aspect ofdiscovery in a retail chain misclassification case

is usually e-mails at the regional and corporate level, but Defendants refuse to produce

them here, much less even suggest when they might possibly be forthcoming.” [Doc. No.

183, at p. 11.] In connection with their request for regional and corporate e-mail, plaintiffs

request broadly “the Court’s guidance regarding the parameters ofDefendants’ collection

and production of ESI and other discovery to which they are entitled.” Id. at p. 12.

Plaintiffs further note that “[n]o ESI protocol was in place in this action until August 26,

2016,” and claim that “[defendants appear to relieve themselves oftheir obligation under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) to supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’ [previous discovery]

requests.” [Doc. No. 183, atpp. 14,15.]

Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ request for regional and corporate e-mails on the

following grounds: (1) plaintiffs do not identify the specific requests at issue; and (2) the

only discovery requests which sought regional and corporate e-mail were plaintiffs’ fifth

set of requests for production (hereinafter “RFP 5”), for which no meet and confer has

occurred. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 44, 63.] Defendants further note that “to the extent

[plaintiffs’ request for ‘regional and corporate e-mail’ is a request for materials responsive

to their Requests for Production, Set 1 (‘RFP 1’), Set 2 (‘RFP 2’), or Set 4 (‘RFP 4’), this

request is untimely, as this Court’s deadlines for filing relevant motions to compel have

long passed.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 44.]

The Court notes that plaintiffs did not briefthe Joint Motion in the manner required

by Chambers’ Rules. In this regard, Chambers’ Rules state as follows:

If the discovery dispute concerns written discovery requests

(e.g., interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for

production, subpoenas), the parties shall submit a “Joint Motion

for Determination of Discovery Dispute.” For each written

discovery request in dispute, the Joint Motion must include:

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 The exact wording ofthe discovery request;

The exact response to the request by the responding party;

1.

28 2.

4

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 26
A statement by the propounding party and any points and

authorities as to why a further response should be compelled;

and,

A precise statement by the responding party and any points

and authorities as to the bases for all objections and/or claims

ofprivilege.

1 3.

2

3 4.

4

5

Chambers’ Rules, § V.D.

In the instant Motion, plaintiffs make general arguments about the collection, search

and production of ESI at the regional and corporate level in the context of defendants’

responses. For example, plaintiffs contend they have made repeated attempts to reach

agreement with defendants regarding “discovery previously sought by Plaintiffs, including

as to Defendants’ affirmative defenses and other areas which implicate corporate-level

decision-making, where corporate-level custodians must be identified and their ESI

searched.” [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 13, 31.] However, plaintiffs do not identify the discovery

requests previously sought by plaintiffs on a request-by-request basis. Instead, plaintiffs

broadly take issue with the “search terms” used by defendants and the use of a “delimiter.”

[Doc. No. 183, at p. 14.] Plaintiffs further assert that “Defendants have baulked at

identifying relevant custodians, including at the corporate-level, and otherwise have

stymied Plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain corporate-level ESI.. ..” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 14.]

However, plaintiffs fail to address on a request-by-request basis, either the relevant search

terms, or the identity or job titles ofthe document custodians plaintiffs believe would be

appropriate. By contrast, defendants made a reasonable attempt in the instant Motion to

narrow the scope of the overly broad arguments made by plaintiffs about regional and

corporate e-mail and ESI based on its view of the case. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 63-66.]

Defendants also attempted to provide substantive responses to each ofplaintiffs’ arguments

about regional and corporate e-mail and ESI, and to explain why defendants believe its

responses were appropriate under the circumstances. Id. Defendants assert that they

“ha[ve] insisted that any discussion of electronic systems, potential custodians of

documents, and possible search terms must be tethered to specific document requests

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

'22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 26
Plaintiffs have propounded. . . . Petco has resisted discussing ‘regional and corporate’ email in a vacuum and not in relation to a specific request.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 65.]

In sum, plaintiffs failed to abide by the Chambers’ Rules requiring them to include,

among otherthings, the exact wording ofthe discovery request at issue. [Chambers’ Rules,

§ V.D.] Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this protocol has unnecessarily resulted in

difficulty deciphering the precise nature of plaintiffs’ objections. This Chambers’ Rule is

in place to allow for the expedient review of disputed discovery requests. Going forward,

any joint discovery motions filed that fail to meet the briefing requirements in Chambers’

Rules will be subject to denial.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1) requires a party state with particularity the

grounds for a court order and the reliefsought. Here, plaintiffs fail to clearly state what

relief they seek and why they are entitled to a court order compelling that relief.

Particularly when a party stands on an overly broad request and does not make a reasonable

attempt to narrow it or to explain the need for such a broad range of documents and/or

information, the Court will not “rewrite a party’s discovery request to obtain the optimum

result for that party. That is counsel’s job.” Bartolome v. City & Cty. ofHonolulu, No.

Civil 0-176 SOM/LEK, 2008 WL 2736016, at *14 (D. Hawaii July 14, 2008). The Court

agrees with defendants that plaintiffs have not made a fair and appropriate attempt to

identify with particularity the scope ofthe ESI as it relates to regional and corporate e-mail.

Further, plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as it relates to the collection, search and

production ofESI at the regional and corporate level is premature. As ofthe date the instant

Motion was filed, the parties had not meaningfully met and conferred as to all of the

disputed discovery requests on a request-by-request basis. Defendants note that they

served written responses to RFP 5 on October 27, 2016. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 64.] The

parties exchanged one letter and a request for a sample of documents, but the parties had

no discussion of any perceived deficiencies as ofthe date that the Joint Motion was filed.

Id. The prematurity of plaintiffs’ inclusion ofthe regional and corporate e-mail issue is

further evidenced by the fact that on January 25,2017, counsel for the partiesjointly called

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

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 26
the Court seeking leave for plaintiff to file a Motion to Compel regarding defendants’

responses to plaintiffs’ RFP 5. [Doc. No. 210.] The parties represented to the Court that

as of that date, they had satisfied their meet and confer obligations. Id. Based on this

representation, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file and serve a Motion to Compel

regarding RFP 5 and issued a briefing schedule accordingly. Id.

To the extent that plaintiffs claim that their “prior requests ... specifically sought.. .

corporate decision-making ESI,” including regional and corporate e-mail, and that they are

entitled to these documents in response to their earlier discovery requests (RFP 1,2 and 4),

the Court finds this argument has no merit and is untimely. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 14-15.]

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel defendants to collect, search and produce

ESI at the regional and corporate-level regarding RFP 5 is DENIED as untimely and for

failure to properly meet and confer.

C. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Certain Interrogatories and

Requests for Production in Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories and

Requests for Production [hereinafter “RFP 3”1.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1. Search Terms.

16

With respect to the search terms to be used by defendants to collect and produce

responsive documents, the parties appear to have engaged in significant meet and confer

efforts and have fundamental differences regarding the ESI search terms to be used. [Doc.

No. 183-1, at 7, 15, 19, 24, 25, 27; see also Doc. No. 183, at pp. 55-57.] According to

defendant, on November 8,2016, plaintiffs sent their final search term proposal. [Doc. No.

183, at p. 57.] Defendants contend it is “elaborate and complex” and none ofthe searches

are limited to e-mail with the Discovery Opt-Ins’ names. Id. Defendants contend that

plaintiffs’ proposed selection ofsearch terms would result in more than 400,000 documents

to review for possible production if limited to the 30 Discovery Opt-In Deponents, and

more than 1.5 million ifthe search terms include the 118 Discovery Opt-Ins. Petco has not

agreed to plaintiffs’ proposal and on November 15, 2016, defendants contend they made

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 26
an alternative proposal. Plaintiffs had not yet responded as of the filing of this Joint

Motion, on November 17,2016. Id.

Under defendants’ proposal, Petco will search for the terms it has identified and

almost all of the 90+ terms proposed by plaintiffs, subject to certain limits designed to

generate a manageable volume ofresponses likely to be responsive, within e-mail files of

the 30 Discovery Opt-In Deponents. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 57 (citing Ex. M to ManekerDeck

at 124-25).] Plaintiffs take issue with defendants’ use of certain limits on its proposed

search terms, including, for example, the first or last name ofthe Discovery Opt-In. [Doc.

No. 183, at p. 14.] Plaintiffs’ proposal is unreasonable and overbroad. Based on the

Court’s review of the discovery requests at issue, and in light of the proportionality

standard set forth in Rule 26(b), it appears that defendants’ proposal to search for

responsive documents using the search terms as set forth in Exhibit M in Maneker’s

Declaration is sufficient. Consequently, plaintiffs’ request for a court order related to the

expanded search terms is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 3 of RFP 3.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 On November 29, 2016, the Court held an informal discovery telephonic conference

regarding, among other things, the instant Joint Motion. [Doc. No. 189.] Counsel for

plaintiffs, Mr. Seth Lesser, advised the Court that plaintiffs seek to withdraw the dispute

regarding defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 3. Id. Accordingly, any

issues in the Joint Motion regarding Interrogatory No. 3 are denied as MOOT.

3. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 5 of RFP 3.

17

18

19

20

21

22

Interrogatory No. 5 asks Petco to identify “all communications that the General

Managers and District Managers ofthe Subject Plaintiffs have had concerning this lawsuit”

and for each communication to identify “whom the communication was with, as well as

the date, form and substance ofthe communication.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 19.] Plaintiffs

define “Subject Plaintiffs” as the 118 Discovery Opt-Ins and Plaintiff Kellgren. Id. at p.

16. Plaintiffs contend that Interrogatory No. 5 “seek[s] clearly relevant information and

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 26
[is] not overly broad, unduly burdensome or disproportionate to the needs ofthis case” and

“is the same type ofinformation that Defendants have sought (and obtained) from each and

every Discovery Opt-In to whom they have directed written discovery.” Id. at p. 35.

Defendants objected to this Interrogatory on various grounds, including that “the

interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome.” Id. at p. 69. Defendants noted that

there are 240 current and former General Managers (hereinafter “GMs”) and District

Managers (hereinafter “DMs”) and argue that they “cannot readily determine ‘all

communications’ that may have taken place by or between any of several hundred

employees.” Id.

Defendants assert that the “cost and time associated with tracking down and

interviewing each ofthese individuals outweighs any benefit that would be derived.” Id.

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to compel defendants to interview or speak with each of

the current and former GMs and DMs about this discovery request (or similar requests at

issue herein), the Court finds it unnecessary in light of the limited e-mail files that

defendants have already agreed to produce.

Defendants state that they have “agreed to search for and produce, e-mail that

appears designed to obtain this information for a sample of the [30] Discovery Opt-Ins

[Deponents].” Id. at p. 70 (citing to Exhibit M to Maneker Deck at 124-25, 125-37).

Defendants explain in the Declaration of Meryl Maneker that they have agreed to search

for e-mail to obtain responsive information related to 30 subject plaintiffs who will be

selected for deposition (hereinafter “Discovery Opt-In Deponents”) because they estimate

the volume of e-mail to be collected from the stores and DMs, related to 118 Discovery

Opt-Ins would comprise four to five terabytes of data. [Doc. No. 183-18, at p. 5, f 18.]

“The estimate to process, load and host that volume of data Petco received ranged from

$277,000 to almost $1 million (depending on the amount of e-mail that contained a search

term).” Id. Petco further estimated attorneys’ fees related to the review ofsearch results of

this volume of data would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Id. The Court finds that

the significant cost associated with searching for and producing information related to all

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

9

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 26
ofthe 118 Discovery Opt-Ins is not proportional to the needs ofthe case. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(B). Without more, plaintiffs have not shown that a sampling of responsive

information for the 30 Discovery Opt-In Deponents is insufficient for them to pursue their

theory ofthe case.

Accordingly, at this time, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ request to compel

defendants to interview or speak with each ofthe current and former GMs and DMs about

this discovery request. Defendants are to produce the e-mail files for the 30 Discovery

Opt-In Deponents during the time they worked as Assistant Managers during the relevant

time period using the search methodology and search terms set forth in Exhibit M ofthe

Maneker Declaration. To the extent that defendants have produced documents sought as

represented, their response to Interrogatory No. 5 is sufficient.

4. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 6 of RFP 3.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Interrogatory No. 6 asks Petco to “identify and describe any communication(s)

Defendants’ General Managers and District Managers] [sic] have had relating to or

concerning any complaints made by any Subject Plaintiffs or AM regarding hours worked,

the manner in which they were paid, staffing levels, and/or labor budgets at the stores where

they worked.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 19.] Plaintiffs contend that Interrogatory No. 6 “seek[s]

clearly relevant information and [is] not overly broad, unduly burdensome or

disproportionate to the needs of this case” and again assert that it “is the same type of

information that Defendants have sought (and obtained) from each and every Discovery

Opt-In to whom they have directed written discovery.” Id. at p. 35.

Defendants contend that they have “appropriately responded to Interrogatory No. 6.”

[Doc. No. 183, at p. 70.] Notwithstanding defendants’ objections to this Interrogatory,

defendants directed plaintiffs to their response to RFP 3, Request for Production No. 2,

“wherein Petco agreed to search for and produce, responsive, non-privileged e-mails, from

select store and District manager e-mail files, including those containing the root term

‘complain*’ and an Opt-In’s name.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 70 (citing Ex. A to Conway Deck,

14

■15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

,26

27

28

10

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 26
at pp. 7-10, 31-32).] Defendants also contend that they “agreed to search for e-mail files

with the term ‘labor’ in close proximity to the terms ‘budget’ or ‘hours’ and for e-mail files

with the word ‘hours’ and either ‘AM,’ ‘Assistant Manager,’ or the Opt-In’s name.” [Doc.

No. 183, at p. 70 (citing Ex. A to Conway Decl., at pp. 7-10, 31-32).] Defendants contend

that “this interrogatory seeks information similar to that sought in RFP 2, Request [for

Production] No. 14, which sought documents ‘concerning complaints by AMs, whether

formal or informal’ regarding ‘failure to pay AMs for all hours worked, including overtime

hours, and the number ofhours an AM was working.” [Doc. No. 183, atpp. 70-71 (internal

citation omitted).] Defendants note that they have “searched various sources for such

complaints and produced the same.” Id.

Notably, plaintiffs’ fail to acknowledge in the Joint Motion that defendants agreed

to search for and produce certain responsive documents to this Interrogatory in connection

with similar requests made by plaintiffs in RFP 3, Request for Production No. 2 and RFP

2, Request for Production No. 14. In fact, plaintiffs’ argument regarding Interrogatory

Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 is summarized in just a few paragraphs containing general arguments.

[Doc. No. 183, at pp. 33-35.] Instead, plaintiffs claim that “these requests seek clearly

relevant information and are not overly broad, unduly burdensome or disproportionate to

the needs ofthe case.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 35.]

For the reasons outlined in the previous discussion, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’

request to compel defendants to interview or speak with each of the current and former

GMs and DMs about this discovery request. This demand is also inconsistent with the

permissible scope of interrogatories under the Federal Rules. Defendants have already

agreed to produce certain documents sought as represented herein, which the Court finds

sufficient.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

5. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 7 of RFP 3.

Interrogatory No. 7 asks Petco to “describe any communications Defendants’

General Managers and District Managers had with any store employee where the Subject

Plaintiffs worked wherein they recommended, mandated and/or directed the reduction of

25

26

27

28

li

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 26
the number of employees and/or labor hours for a particular day or given time period.”

[Doc. No. 183, at p. 20.] Plaintiffs contend that Interrogatory No. 7 “seek[s] clearly

relevant information and [is] not overly broad, unduly burdensome or disproportionate to

the needs ofthis case” and “is the same type ofinformation that Defendants have sought

(and obtained) from each and every Discovery Opt-In to whom they have directed written

discovery.” Id. at p. 35. Petco objected to this request on various grounds, including that

it is overly broad and unduly burdensome explaining that “Petco cannot readily determine

‘any communication’ that may have taken place by or between hundreds of employees.”

[Doc. No. 183, at p. 71.]

Defendants argue that there are 240 current and former GMs and DMs and contend

that “this request is not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the time and

resources to complete this task balanced against the materiality ofthe information and the

ability to obtain the information through a less intrusive means.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 71.]

Notwithstanding their objections, defendants note that they have “agreed to collect, search

and review e-mail from select store and DM e-mail files using Plaintiffs’ search terms -

such as ‘labor[,]’ ‘budget[,]’ or ‘hours’ that appear designed to obtain the information

sought.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Ex. M to Maneker Deck at 124-25, 135-37.)

Additionally, defendants assert that “plaintiffs may depose up to nine GMs or DMs ifthey

seek yet further information.” Id. As set forth in Exhibit M ofthe Maneker Declaration,

defendants have agreed to “search the Store and DM e-mail for the 30 Opt-In Plaintiffs

selected as deponents” using Petco’s search terms and plaintiffs’ search terms, with certain

limitations. [Ex. M to Maneker Deck at 124-125, 135-37.] The Court finds defendants’

response to Interrogatory No. 7 sufficient in light ofthe proportionality standards set forth

in Rule 26.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Accordingly, at this time, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ request to compel

defendants to interview or speak with each ofthe current and former GMs and DMs about

this discovery request. Defendants are to produce the responsive, non-privileged store and

DM e-mail files for the 30 Discovery Opt-In Deponents using the search methodology and

25

26

27

28

12

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 26
1 search terms set forth in Exhibit M of the Maneker Declaration. To the extent that

defendants have produced documents sought as represented, their response to Interrogatory

No. 7 is sufficient.

2

* 3

4 6. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 8 of RFP 3.

5

Interrogatory No. 8 asks Petco to: “identify all communication(s) that Defendants’

General Managers and District Managers have had concerning the classification and/or

reclassification ofthe Subject Plaintiffs or AMs as exempt or non-exempt from overtime,

including the dissolution or discontinuance ofthe AM position.” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 20.]

Interrogatory No. 8 further requests “[f]or each communication, identify whom the

communication was with and the date, form and substance of the communication.” Id.

Interrogatory No. 8 “has no date limitation.” Plaintiffs contend that Interrogatory No. 8

“seek[s] clearly relevant information and [is] not overly broad, unduly burdensome or

disproportionate to the needs of this case” and “is the same type of information that

Defendants have sought (and obtained) from each and every Discovery Opt-In to whom

they have directed written discovery.” Id. at p. 35.

Defendants assert that they have “appropriately responded to Interrogatory No. 8.”

[Doc. No. 183, at p. 72.] Defendants objected to this Interrogatory and explained that

“[Petco] cannot readily determine ‘any communication’ that may have taken place by or

Notwithstanding their objections to this

Interrogatory, defendants directed plaintiffs to the “documents produced in response to

RFP 4, specifically identifying the set of talking points distributed to GMs and DMs

regarding the elimination of the AM position.” Id. Defendants contend that they asked

plaintiffs to clarify how this response was deficient during the meet and confer process, but

plaintiffs failed to do so. Id. Defendants also agreed to search select store and DM e-mail

files apparently intended to locate the information sought by plaintiffs, in addition to the

documents identified above. Id.

For the reasons outlined in the previous discussion, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

between hundreds of employees.’” Id. 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 26
request to compel defendants to interview or speak with each of the current and former

GMs and DMs about this discovery request. Defendants have already agreed to produce

certain documents sought as represented herein, which Court finds sufficient.

7. Plaintiffs* Requests for Production Nos. 1-6 and 8-10 of RFP 3.

1

2

3

4

5

In the Joint Motion, plaintiffs combine their arguments regarding why the Court

should compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1-6 and 8-10. [Doc. No.

183, at pp. 36-38.] Plaintiffs assert generally that the Requests for Production in RFP 3

“seek relevant communications sent and received by the GMs and DMs who supervised

the Subject Plaintiffs.” [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 35-36.] The Court will consider plaintiffs’

arguments (and defendants’ responses) regarding these Requests for Production together

as they all relate to communications sent or received by the GMs and DMs who supervised

the Discovery Opt-Ins. However, certain requests, including text messages sent or

received, will be discussed separately.

Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1-6 and 8-10 seek the following:

• All documents, e-mails, text and internet messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent or received by Defendants' General

Managers and/or District Managers relating to the Subject Plaintiffs. (No. 1).

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

• All documents, e-mails, text and internet messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent or received by Defendants' General

Managers and/or District Managers relating to complaints about the staffing

levels or labor budgets at the stores where the SubjectPlaintiffs worked. (No.

19

20

21 2).

22

• All documents, e-mails, text and internet messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent or received by Defendants' General

Managers and/or District Managers instructing or relating to instructions they

gave to send hourly-paid employees home during their shifts at the stores

where the Subject Plaintiffs worked. (No. 3).

23

24

25

26

• All documents, e-mails, text and instant messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent or received by Defendants’ General

Managers and/or District Managers relating to, concerning or in connection

.27

28

14

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 26
with this lawsuit (excluding communications with Defendants ’ counsel) as

theypertain to the Subject Plaintiffs. (No. 4).

1

2

• All documents, e-mails, text and instant messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent and/or received by Defendants' General

Managers and/or District Managers that evidence or record the times that the

Subject Plaintiffs arrived at work, took a meal and rest break, departedfrom

work and/or worked in excess of40 hours in a workweek. (No. 5).

3

4

5

6

7 • All documents sent or received by Defendants' General Managers and/or

District Managers reflecting, concerning, or showing when the Subject

Plaintiffs were directed to perform and/or complete manual tasks including,

but not limited to, pricing merchandise, unloading freight, merchandise

recovery, cleaning the store, stocking the shelves, operating the cash register,

and setting up displays, adplanners and/orplanograms. (No. 6).

8

9

10

11

• All documents sent or received by Defendants’ General Managers and/or

District Managers reflecting, concerning, or showing when the Subject

Plaintiffs made (eitherformal or informal and whether in writing or verbal)

complaints about insufficient staffing levels, the labor budget and/or wage

and hour issues including, but not limited to, complaints concerning

Defendants' failure to pay the Subject Plaintiffs for all hours worked,

including overtime hours, and the number of hours the Subject Plaintiffs

worked. (No. 8).

12

13

14

15

16

17

• All documents, e-mails, text and instant messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent or received by Subject Plaintiffs'

General Managers and District Managers concerning the classification and/or

reclassification ofthe AMposition as exempt or non-exemptfrom overtime

and/or the dissolution or discontinuance ofthe AMposition. (This Request

has no date limitation). (No. 9).

18

19

20

21

22

• All documents, e-mails, text and instant messages, tweets, posts on social

media and other communications sent or received by Defendants' General

Managers and District Managers reflecting, concerning, or showing when the

Subject Plaintiffs were required to work on scheduled days off, were on call,

or otherwise responded to communications from Defendants when not

scheduled to work or when not in the store. (No. 10).

23

24

25

26

27 [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 21-28 (emphasis added).]

28

15

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of 26
Defendants objected to these document requests on various grounds, including that

the requests are unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs ofthis case.1 [Doc.

No. 183, at p. 22.] Notwithstanding their objections, defendants agreed to search for and

produce store and DM e-mails for a sample of 30 Discovery Opt-Ins. [Doc. No. 183, at pp.

21-25, 74.] For example, in response to plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 1,

defendants agreed to search for and produce the following documents for each Subject

Plaintiff:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 • Any application for employment with Petco stored at the HR Service Center

or at the store where he/she worked as an Assistant Manager; 9

10 • Any performance Evaluations stored at the HR Service Center or at the store

where he/she worked as an [sic] Assistant Managers; 11

12 • Any Employee Performance Notices stored at the HR Service Center or at the

store where he/she worked as an Assistant Manager; 13

14 • Any Online Personnel Action records reflecting separation from employment

from Petco, if applicable; and 15

16 • Any complaints by or regarding the Subject Plaintiff made to the Petco

Hotline. 17

18 [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 22, 24.] Defendants also agreed to search for and produce, on a

rolling basis, responsive, non-privileged e-mails with respect to the 30 Opt-In Deponents

pursuant to the procedure set forth in their responses. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 24-25.]

Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ responses to each of plaintiffs’ Requests for

Production Nos. 1-6 and 8-10 are deficient because “it appears that Defendants did not

speak with any ofits General Managers and District Managers about plaintiffs’ requests,

19

20

21

'22

23

24

25 i Plaintiffs included defendants’ response to Request for Production No. 1 in the body ofthe Joint

Motion. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 21-25.] However, plaintiffs note as follows in the Joint Motion: “because

Defendants’ objections and responses to each ofPlaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 2-10 span

several pages (and are substantially similar), so as to not burden the Court with excessive briefing [they]

incorporate[d] by reference the applicable pages from Defendants’ responses, as annexed to the

Affidavit ofJason Conway.” Id. at p. 21.

26

27

28

16

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of 26
and Defendants did not include any specific GM or DM communications or documents in

their responses.” [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 36, 37.] Plaintiffs assert that “the requests are

directly proportional to the needs ofthe case and relate specifically to the 118 Discovery

Opt-Ins (including PlaintiffKellgren) whom Defendants have similarly obtained discovery

from (or are in the process of doing so).” Id. at p. 37. Plaintiffs cite National Association

ofRadiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 556 (N.D. Cal. 1987), and assert that

“a reasonable inquiry requires, ‘at a minimum, a reasonable procedure to distribute

discovery requests to all employees and agents of the [party] potentially possessing

responsive information, and to account for the collection and subsequent production ofthe

information to [the opposing party]’” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 37.] Finally, plaintiffstake issue

with defendants’ indication that “they will ‘consider’ searching, in some instances, their email boxes for responsive documents” as opposed to actually performing any substantive

inquiries with their GMs and DMs. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 38.]

Defendants counter by noting that, on their face, these requests are directed to Petco,

not to individual GMs or DMs. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 73]. Defendants further note that they

are not required to speak to each GM or DM to respond to these requests because it would

be overly burdensome and not proportional to the needs ofthis case. Id. To the extent that

plaintiffs seek information from specific GMs and/or DMs, they will have the opportunity

to depose up to nine supervisors. Id.

Further, defendants contend that they are not required to speak with the GMs and/or

DMs because the reasonably responsive documents sought could be identified and gathered

without their involvement. Id. at p. 73. Defendants explain in the Joint Motion that at

Petco, each store (as opposed to any individual GM) has a Petco-issued e-mail account

accessible by the GM and DM. Id. Further, Petco manages and/or maintains personnel

records for and complaints related to its employees, including the Discovery Opt-Ins,

centrally. Id. Petco contends it “conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of

each response to RFP 3 as contemplated by Natl Ass ’n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage,

115 F.R.D. 543, 556 (N.D. Cal. 1987).” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 74.] Specifically, Petco

1

2

’ 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

44

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of 26
contends it “has produced, or is in the process of producing personnel records as well as

any complaint(s) by or regarding them made to the Petco Hotline and Petco has agreed to

search for and produce responsive, non-privileged e-mail from stores and DMs related to

the 30 Opt-Ins selected for deposition during the time when they were an AM.” [Doc. No.

183, atp. 74.]

Finally, with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 4-6 and 9-10, defendants

counter by noting that “plaintiffs grossly mischaracterize Petco's willingness to ‘consider’

searching for additional documents as indicia ofits failure to perform a substantive inquiry

with its GMs and DMs.” Id. at p. 75. Specifically, Petco has agreed to search the store and

DM e-mail files forthe 30 Opt-In Deponents using both Petco’s search terms and plaintiffs’

search terms, with “appropriate limitations.2” [Doc. No. 183, at p. 75.]

The Court agrees with defendants that they are not required to speak with the GMs

and/or DMs because the reasonably responsive documents sought can be identified and

gathered without theirinvolvement. In light ofthe significant cost for defendants to collect,

search and produce the volume of e-mail for all 118 Discovery Opt-Ins and their respective

DMs, the Court also agrees that defendants’ search, review, and production of nonprivileged, responsive e-mail from the mailboxes of the stores and DMs of the 30

Discovery Opt-In Deponents using both Petco’s search terms and plaintiffs’ search terms

is sufficient.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

-17

18

19

The Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for

Production Nos. 1-6 and 8-10. For the reasons outlined in the previous discussion, the

Court DENIES plaintiffs’ request to compel defendants to interview or speak with each of

the current and former GMs and DMs about these discovery requests. Defendants have

already agreed to produce certain documents sought as represented herein, which the Court

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2 Petco contends that it has proposed limitations for 74 ofplaintiffs’ proposed search terms, and has

agreed to no limitation on 12 ofplaintiffs’ terms, all ofwhich seek to limit results to the documents most

likely to have relevant information. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 75.]

27

.28

18

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of 26
1 finds sufficient.

a. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Text Messages Sent or Received by GMs

and DMs.

2

3

Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1-3 include requests for defendants to

produce text messages sent or received by GMs and DMs regarding the Discovery Opt-Ins

(Request for Production No. 1); complaints about staffing levels or labor budgets (Request

for Production No. 2); and text messages sent orreceived by GMs or DMs with instructions

to send hourly-paid employees home during shifts at the stores where Subject Plaintiffs

worked (Request for Production No. 3). [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 21-25.]

Defendants object to plaintiffs’ requests for text messages sent or received by GMs

and DMs on various grounds, including that they are unduly burdensome and not

proportional to the needs of this case. Id. Defendants argue that the GMs do not have

company-issued phones and that the GMs’ personal phones are “outside Petco’s custody,

control or possession and would invade these individuals’ privacy rights.” [Doc. No. 183,

at p. 76.] Defendants note “Petco’s Store Communications Policy,” which advises that

DMs are permitted to communicate with stores through e-mail or voice-mail, to support

their argument that the text messages sought by plaintiffs are not likely to contain

significant information relevant to whether the Discovery Opt-Ins were properly classified

as exempt. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 76-77.] Finally, defendants reiterate that “[s]ince Petco

has agreed to search for and produce a substantial sample ofresponsive e-mailsto and from

DMs, the burden to search text messages simply is notjustified.” Id. at p. 77.

Plaintiffs’ argument in support oftheir need for text messages sent or received by

GMs and DMs is vague, at best. Plaintiffs claim that defendants have “acknowledged that

DMs, for example, were issued with company phones and, therefore, may have texted with

store-level employees, including the Discovery Opt-Ins, about theirjob duties.” [Doc. No.

183, at p. 38.] Notably, plaintiffs do not cite anything in support of this

“acknowledgement.” Id. In response to defendants’ arguments that the GMs’ personal

phones are outside ofPetco’s possession, custody or control, plaintiffs contend that “this

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

19

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of 26
claim is spurious at best” and that “the company has direct control over what information

GMs and DMs’ [sic] can post and send using these mediums, and indicates that individuals

can be terminated for not complying with their corporately-mandated rules.” Id. (citing

generally to Defendants’ Social Media and Networking Policy and Corporate Voice and

DataCommunications Policy). Plaintiffs cite to Defendants’ Social Media andNetworking

Policy and Corporate Voice and Data Communications Policy in support ofits argument

that “GMs and DMs have no expectation of privacy,” without any analysis or citation of

authority. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 39.] Defendants counter plaintiffs’ characterization of

Petco’s Social Media and Networking Policy noting that it simply “sets forth guidelines

[for] individuals identifying themselves as Petco employees that they should follow when

using social media in their personal capacity.” [Id. at p. 78.]

The Court finds that plaintiffs fail to clearly state why they are entitled to a court

order compelling production oftext messages sent or received by GMs and DMs on their

personal cell phones in connection with plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1-3. The

Court agrees with the arguments made by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs’ requests

to produce text messages sent or received by GMs and DMs regarding the Discovery OptIns. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of text

messages sent or received by GMs and DMs in connection with plaintiffs’ Requests for

Production Nos. 1-3.

T 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

,12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 b. Plaintiffs’ Requests for “Internet Messages” Made or Received by

GMs or DMs. 21

22 Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1-3 include requests for “internet messages,

tweets and posts on social media” made or received by the Discovery Opt-Ins’ GMs or

DMs. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 21-25.] Similarly, Requests for Production Nos. 4-5 and 9-10

include requests for “tweets and posts on social media” made or received by the Discovery

Opt-Ins’ GMs or DMs. Id. at p. 26.

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of 26
Defendants object to plaintiffs’ requests for this material on various grounds and

further contend that this information is not within Petco’s possession, custody or control.

[Doc. No. 183, at p. 78.] Defendant explains in the Joint Motion that “while Petco

maintains social media accounts, such as a Facebook page, GMs and DMs do not have

access to or the ability to post on these accounts on behalf ofPetco” [Id. (emphasis

included in original).] Defendants further explain that any personal social media accounts

ofthe GMs and DMs are personal and not available to Petco, invoking these individuals’

privacy rights. Id.

Plaintiffs make the same argument in support ofinternet messages, including tweets

and posts on social media, made or received by GMs and DMs, as made in support oftext

messages, summarized above. [Doc. No. 183, atp. 38:23-26; p. 39:1-17,]

For the same reasons explained above, the Court agrees with the arguments made by

defendants in opposition to plaintiffs’ requests to produce internet messages, tweets and

posts on social media made or received by the Discovery Opt-Ins’ GMs or DMs.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of internet

messages, tweets and posts on social media in connection with plaintiffs’ Requests for

Production Nos. 1-5 and 9-10.

8. Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 7. including Planograms, Ad

Planners. Floor Resets and Floor Plans.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Request for Production No. 7 seeks “[a]ll documents sent or received by Defendants’

General Managers and/or District Managers that reflect the tasks, assignments, duties,

and/or functions performed by the Subject Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, all

policies and procedures related to the Subject Plaintiffs’ job duties, all instructions on the

performance of manual tasks performed by the Subject Plaintiffs, and all planograms, ad

planners, floor resets, floor plans and all other documents providing instruction concerning

the layout ofthe stores where the Subject Plaintiffs worked.” [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 39-40.]

Defendants object to the production ofplanograms, ad planners, floor resets or floor

plans, on various grounds, including because they are “not relevant to a party’s claim or

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

21

28

21

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of 26
defense, because [they] ha[ve] no bearing on whether Petco’s Assistant Managers were

properly classified as exempt.” [Doc. No. 183-2, at p. 22.]

Plaintiffs contend that planograms, ad planners, floor resets, and floor plans

(hereinafter “planogram documents”) are received by defendants’ GMs and DMs through

defendants’ intranet portal. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 40.] Plaintiffs further contend that the

manner in which “Petco micromanages their stores, including with respect to store layout,

is central to whether AMs are properly classified as exempt under the FLSA, an analysis

which turns on: (1) the nature ofPlaintiffs’ primary duties; and (2) the degree of discretion

(or, in this case, lack ofdiscretion) that Plaintiffs had both in the performance oftheir duties

generally and by completing pre-determined planograms and other corporately-derived

plans.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that the refusal to produce these documents prejudices

plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute this action. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 41.] Plaintiffs claim that

these documents are “regularly produced during the course ofFLSA retail misclassification

cases.” Id. at pp. 40-42. Plaintiffs cite case law in support ofits argument that courts have

relied on these types ofdocuments as evidence ofcorporate control over managers in FLSA

cases and as evidence of assistant managers’ lack of discretion. [Doc. No. 183, at pp. 40-

41; see, e.g., Indergitv. Rite Aid Corp., No. 08 Civ. 9361(PGG), 2010 WL 2465488, at *5

(S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2010).]

Defendants counter plaintiffs’ arguments for the planogram documents on multiple

grounds, generally asserting that they are not responsive to Request for Production No. 7

and are not relevant. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 78.] More specifically, defendants contend that

the fact that Petco provides its stores with uniform instructions, such as planograms, does

not, in and ofitself, establish that AMs lack discretion. Id. at pp. 78-79; see, e.g., Mitchell

v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Co., 428 F. Supp. 2d 725, 743 (S.D. Ohio 2006).] Defendants

attempt to distinguish the authority cited by plaintiffs in support of their argument, and

contend that none ofthe cases cited by plaintiffs “specifically found that planograms and

the like are evidence of non-exempt status, and none ofthem specifically considered their

impact on a retail manager’s level of discretion.” Id. at p. 80. “Rather this evidence was

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

22

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 22 of 26
cited to either show plaintiffs performed similar duties for conditional class certification

purposes or focused on numerous non-exempt tasks including but not limited to setting up

planograms as evidence in a particular case that plaintiffs were non-exempt.” Id.

Second, defendants contend that the planogram documents are not responsive to

Request for Production No. 7 because it seeks documents “sent or received by GMs and/or

DMs” related to tasks performed by the Discovery Opt-Ins, including documents

“providing instruction concerning the layout ofthe stores where the” Discovery Opt-Ins

worked. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 80.] GMs and DMs do not individually receive these four

types of documents, but rather these documents are made available to all of the

management team of a particular store. Id. at pp. 80-81. Third, defendants contend that the

planogram documents “are factually of little value as they would shed no light on the

Discovery Opt-Ins’ duties or hours or whether AMs were properly classified as exempt”

because merchandising was not one ofthe AMs’ duties. [Doc. No. 183, at p. 81.] Further,

defendants contend that producing such documents would be extremely burdensome in that

Request for Production No. 7 seeks these related to more than 100 stores. Id. Defendants

note that they have agreed to provide plaintiffs “a three-month sample ofAction Memos,

which will include ad planners and floor resets, as well as other documents sent to a single

store,” and that plaintiffshould be required to review this sample before obtaining more.

Id. atpp. 81-82.

Despite defendants’ arguments to the contrary, plaintiffs have argued convincingly

that the planogram documents are relevant as evidence of corporate control and considered

by courts for certification motions of nationwide FLSA actions. Plaintiffs are entitled to

pursue theirtheory ofthe case. To test thistheory, plaintiffs are at least entitled to a broader

sampling of defendants’ Action Memos, including ad planners and floor resets.

On the other hand, the Court agrees with defendants’ objection that the request for

planogram documents is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Generally, a discovery

request without any temporal or other reasonable limitation is objectionable on its face as

overly broad. See, e.g., Ehrlich v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 302 F.R.D. 620, 625 (D. Kan.

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

23

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 23 of 26
2014); Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 236 F.R.D. 535, 541-542 (D. Kan. 2006). A

document request or interrogatory is also overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face if

it: “(1) uses an omnibus term such as ‘relating to’ or ‘concerning,’ and (2) applies to a

general category or group of document or a broad range of information.” Moses v.

Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2006). “Despite the overly broad nature of [a

discovery request], a party typically has a duty to respond to it to the extent the [discovery

request] is not objectionable and can be narrowed to an appropriate scope.” Id. “This rule

does not apply, however, and the Court will not compel further response, when inadequate

guidance exists to determine the proper scope ofthe [discovery request].” Id. In addition,

when a discovery request “is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily

apparent, the party seeking discovery has the burden to show the relevancy ofthe request.”

Johnson v. Kraft, 236 F.R.D. at 542 n.20 (citing Owens v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 221

F.R.D. 649, 652 (D. Kan. 2004)).

Defendants have agreed to “produce a three-month sample ofAction Memos, which

will include ad planners and floor resets, as well as other documents sent to a single store.”

[Doc. No. 183, at pp. 81-82.] Notably, plaintiffs fail to acknowledge this proposal in the

Motion, and also fail to argue why it is insufficient or too narrow. Instead, plaintiffs stand

on their overly broad request for “all planograms, ad planners, floor resets, floor plans and

all other documents providing instruction concerning the layout of the stores where the

Subject Plaintiffs worked,” notwithstanding there is no date limitation, limitation on the

number ofstores, or other reasonable limitations on the scope of discovery to be produced

in response to this request.

The Court finds that defendants’ proposed limitation of a three-month sample of

Action Memos sent to a single store is too narrow based on the allegations in plaintiffs’

operative Complaint. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS defendants to produce a threemonth sample ofAction Memos for the stores where the 30 Opt-In Deponents worked.

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 III

28 III

24

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 24 of 26
1 III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion is DENIED. [Doc. No. 183.]

Plaintiffs’ request for an in-person discovery conference is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel defendants’ collection, search and production of

ESI at the regional and corporate-level is DENIED.

2

3 1.

4 2.

5

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a further response to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No.

5 in plaintiffs’ RFP 3 is DENIED.

6 3.

7

8

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a further response to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No.

6 in plaintiffs’ RFP 3 is DENIED.

4.

9

10 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a further response to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No.

7 in plaintiffs’ RFP 3 is DENIED.

5.

11

12

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a further response to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No.

8 in plaintiffs’ RFP 3 is DENIED.

6.

13

14

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a further response to plaintiffs’ Requests for

Production Nos. 1-6 and 8-10 is DENIED.

7. 15

16

17 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the production oftext messages sent or received

by GMs and DMs, in connection with plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos.

1-3 in plaintiffs’ RFP 3, is DENIED.

8.

18

19

20 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the production of internet messages, tweets and

posts on social media made or received by the Discovery Opt-Ins’ GMs or

DMs, in connection with plaintiffs’ Requests for Production Nos. 1-5 AND 9-

10 in plaintiffs’ RFP 3, is DENIED.

9.

21

22

23

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel a further response to plaintiffs’ Request for

Production No. 7, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are

ordered to produce a three-month sample ofAction Memos for the stores where

the 30 Opt-In Deponents worked.

10. 24

25

26

27 11. To the extent defendants have not produced responsive documents sought that

28 it has agreed to produce to any ofthe discovery requests herein, defendants are

25

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 25 of 26
1 ORDERED to produce them within twenty (20) days ofthe date ofthis Order.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 2017

3

4

5

6

KARfeTSTCRXWFORT)

United States Magistrate Judge

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

3:13cv644L(KSC)

Case 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC Document 230 Filed 03/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 26 of 26