Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02125/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02125-8/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 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

tUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FERNANDO RUIZ, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

XPO LAST MILE, INC., formerly 

AFFINITY LOGISTICS CORP., 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE [Doc. No. 275] 

19 Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

20 Dispute. [Doc. No. 275.] In the Joint Motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling 

21 defendant to produce documents in response to Document Request Nos. 1,2, and 4. 

22 Specifically, for all class members, plaintiff seeks production of the following documents 

23 for the time period May 2001 through 2008: (1) Settlement Statements for all class 

24 members; (2) manifests, activity reports, time logs, or similar documents that show the 

25 work schedules for class members; and (3) Load OutJPay Reports for all class members 

26 and an Excel spreadsheet with the information identified on the daily Load OutJPay 

27 Reports. 

28 / / / 

1 

05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 10
1 Background 

2 Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint was filed on behalf of all current and fonner 

3 delivery drivers of Affinity Logistics Corporation ("Affinity") in the State of California 

4 since May 2001. [Doc. No.1, at pp. 14-15.] The Complaint alleges that Affinity, a 

5 Georgia corporation, misclassified delivery drivers as "independent contractors" rather 

6 than employees under California law and violated California's wage and hour laws. 

7 [Doc. No.1, at pp. 14-15.] 

8 The Court was recently advised that Affinity merged into CRT Corporation. [Doc. 

9 No. 288, at p. 1.] Thereafter, CRT Corporation changed its name twice and is now called 

10 XPO Last Mile, Inc. [Doc. No. 288, at p. 1.] The District Court recently directed the 

11 Clerk of the Court to substitute XPO Last Mile, Inc. as the sole defendant in this action in 

12 place of Affinity. [Doc. No. 288, at p. 3.] 

13 On January 28, 2009, the District Court issued an Order Granting In Part and 

14 Denying In Part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. [Doc. No. 105, at p. 1.] In 

15 this Order, the District Court defined the class to include "all current and fonner delivery 

16 drivers who made home deliveries for [Affinity] within the State of California at any time 

17 between May 18, 2001 and the date of the resolution of [plaintiff's] Complaint." [Doc. 

18 No. 105, at p. 15.] However, the District Court denied plaintiff's Motion for Class 

19 Certification as to all other issues. [Doc. No. 105, at p. 16.] 

20 After a trial on the merits, the District Court fonnd in favor of Affinity, concluding 

21 that plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that the drivers were misclassified as 

22 independent contractors nnder Georgia law. [Doc. No. 186, at pp. 25-26.] 

23 On appeal, plaintiff argued that the District Court erroneously applied Georgia law. 

24 On March 28, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding "that the parties' 

25 choice of Georgia law is nnenforceable in California" and that "the law of California 

26 applies ... to detennine whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors." 

27 Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318,1325 (9th Cir. 2012). [See also Doc. No. 

28 203, at p. 12.] On remand, the District Court concluded that the drivers were independent 

2 

OScv212S-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 10
1 contractors under California law. [Doc. No. 216, at p. 21.] However, in a second opinion 

2 filed on June 16,2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that the 

3 drivers were employees rather than independent contractors under California law. Ruiz v. 

4 Affinity Logistics Corp., 754 F.3d 1093, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014). [See also Doc. No. 245, at 

5 p.25.] 

6 Next, the District Court concluded plaintiff could file a renewed Motion for Class 

7 Certification. [Doc. No. 256, at p. 3.] On February 1, 2016, the District Court issued an 

8 Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. 

9 [Doc. No. 289, at p. 1.] In this Order, the District Court certified a class for the purpose 

10 of determining defendant's liability as to plaintiff's meal and rest break claims and 

11 plaintiff's reimbursement claims. [Doc. No. 289, at p. 23.] The class is defined as "all 

12 current and former delivery drivers who made home deliveries for [Affinity] within the 

13 State of California at any time between May 18,2001 and the date of the resolution of 

14 this Complaint." [Doc. No. 289, at p. 23.] 

15 With respect to the meal and rest break claims, the District Court indicated in its 

16 Order of February 1, 2016 that the common issue to be resolved for the class is whether 

17 Affinity structured its business in a way that gave rise to an unofficial policy of not 

18 providing breaks or created a work environment in which it was difficult for the Drivers 

19 to take breaks required by California law." [Doc. No. 289, at p. 13.] With respect to 

20 plaintiff's reimbursement claim, the District Court identified two issues common to the 

21 class: (l) whether Affinity "had a practice or policy of reimbursing Drivers by paying 

22 them a higher salary;" and (2) whether Affinity "had a legally satisfactory method to 

23 apportion the enhanced compensation payments." [Doc. No. 289, at pp. 21-22.] If these 

24 two claims fail, the District Court indicated it would be necessary for a trier of fact to 

25 determine whether the lump sum being paid to Drivers was sufficient to cover their 

26 expenses, and this mayor may not be an issue that can be decided on a class-wide basis. 

27 [Doc. No. 289, at p. 21.] 

28 III 

3 

OScv212S-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 10
1 Discussion 

2 "Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: 

3 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

4 party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

5 importance ofthe issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' 

6 relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

7 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

8 discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need 

9 not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(I). 

10 Defendant does not dispute the relevance of the documents and information 

11 plaintiff is pursuing in response to Request Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Particularly given the 

12 District Court's recent Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for 

13 Class Certification [Doc. No. 289], it is undisputed that Request Nos. 1,2, and 4 seek 

14 production of documents that are highly relevant to the subject matter of the action. 

15 Request No.1 seeks "[a]ny and all 'Settlement Statements,' 'pay summary' 

16 documents, and/or other statements showing (i) the specific expenses deducted from each 

17 Driver's pay on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and (ii) the amount of those deductions." 

18 [Doc. No. 275, at p. 3.] In support of their request for an order compelling defendant to 

19 produce responsive documents, plaintiff submitted: (1) a Declaration signed by 

20 Charles T. Hitt, who was Affinity's chief operating officer from January 1,2001 until the 

21 summer of 2007, and (2) an excerpt from Mr. Hitt's deposition. Mr. Hitt's Declaration 

22 states that at the end of each pay period Affinity provided each of its drivers with a 

23 "Settlement Statement" which was a "detailed statement showing the items and amounts 

24 that [were] deducted from their compensation." [Doc. No. 275-1, at pp. 1-6 (Exh. A, 

25 C.T. Hitt Decl.); Doc. No. 275, at p. 3.] In his deposition, Mr. Hitt testified that 

26 settlement records for individual drivers were kept locally where the driver performed 

27 daily work and the information was then "transferred electronically to the corporate 

28 office in Marietta." [Doc. No. 275-3, at pp. 2-3 (Exh. C, C.T. Hitt Depo.).] 

4 

05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 10
1 Defendant did produce documents in response to Request No. 1. However, these 

2 documents are non-responsive in that Request No. 1 specifically seeks production of 

3 documents showing expenses and deductions on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, and the 

4 documents produced by defendant only show this information on a yearly basis. 

5 Defendant produced year end or "Week 52 Master Control Reports" for the years 2005, 

6 2006,2007, and part of 2008, and Form 1099s for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

7 Defendant also indicated that it was unable to locate documents going back to May 2001 

8 but would continue to search for them. [Doc. No. 275, at pp. 3-6.] 

9 Defendant has represented that it does have the information plaintiff seeks in 

10 Request No.1 showing expenses and deductions on a weekly or bi-weekly basis for the 

11 time period in question. [Doc. No. 275, at p. 6; Doc. No. 275-8, at p. 3.] However, 

12 defendant has also represented that it would cost $70,000 or $100,000 to produce this 

13 information. According to defendant, "[t]he cost related to producing the weekly 

14 information is a result of the manner in which the information was kept in the ordinary 

15 course of business. Specifically, the records include the personal information of class 

16 members and non-class members alike on the same pages. As a result, the extraction 

17 required to produce the information as it was kept in the ordinary course of business 

18 while protecting the personal information of individuals not involved in this suit would 

19 involve both costly digital searching done by an outside vendor and hours of manual 

20 work." [Doc. No. 275-8, at p. 4.] Defendant offered to produce the information if the 

21 parties could agree on a cost-sharing arrangement. [Doc. No. 275-8, at p. 3.] 

22 Based on the information provided by defendant, it appears that the major expense 

23 associated with producing a full and complete response to Request No. 1 is the cost of 

24 manually redacting personal information for non-class members. However, without 

25 more, it appears that the expense of redacting this information could be avoided with a 

26 suitable protective order designed to protect the privacy of non-parties. Accordingly, the 

27 Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling a full and complete response to 

28 Request No.1, subject to a suitable protective order to be drafted by the parties and 

S 

OScv212S-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 10
1 presented to the Court. In addition, to the extent any of the requested documents or 

2 information cannot be located back to May 2001, defendant must provide plaintiff with a 

3 detailed declaration signed under penalty of perjury by Affinity's most knowledgeable 

4 representative. The declaration must provide a complete explanation as to why 

5 responsive documents or information cannot be located and outline all steps taken to 

6 make this determination. 

7 Request No.2 seeks "[a]ny and all 'manifests,' activity logs,' 'activity reports,' 

8 'time logs,' or similar documents that show the work schedule of each Driver and the 

9 hours worked by each Driver." [Doc. No. 275, at p. 7.] Defendant has not produced any 

10 responsive documents for two reasons. First, defendant has represented that despite 

11 "diligent efforts" it has not been able to locate any documents responsive to this request. 

12 [Doc. No. 275, at p. 7, 9.] However, plaintiff submitted evidence indicating that 

13 defendant kept responsive documents in the normal course of its business. In this regard, 

14 plaintiff cites the following testimony from the deposition of Affinity's former director of 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

operations: 

Q Aside from this summary of the settlement statement that we're 

looking at here, and the individual settlement statements that I think you 

acknowledged earlier exists for each contractor, are there any other payroll 

or deduction-type documents that exist with respect to the contractors? 

A There is a document that's utilized to track the contractors' settlement 

earnings prior to them being inputted into the medium where the actual 

contractor receives his settlement earnings. 

Q What is that document called? 

A It's a proprietary Affinity program that tracks the contractor's 

manifest and what he's done through the day to generate his earnings. 

Q I'll tell you that I've seen a document from [plaintiff] that lists the 

number of stops that he made on a particular day, and then I think it covers 

the number of stops, then, for the whole week - and if I'm not mistaken, 

there's some more information on that document. Is that the document that 

you're referring to? 

6 

05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 10
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

A Correct. 

Q Does that document have a name? You indicated it's generated 

through proprietary software, but do you call it anything? 

A Yes. 

Q What do you call that? 

A An activity report. 

Q Activity reports are generated on a weekly basis, correct? 

A Yes. 

[Doc. No. 275-6, at pp. 1-4 (J. Harris, Depo Tr.).] 

Based on the information provided thus far, it is unclear why defendant has not 

14 produced activity reports for the time period in question. Therefore, the Court finds that 

15 plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling defendant to produce these activity reports. In 

16 addition, to the extent defendant is unable to locate any of these documents, the Court 

17 finds that plaintiff is entitled to a detailed, explanatory declaration signed under penalty 

18 of perjury by Affinity's most knowledgeable representative. The declaration must 

19 provide a complete explanation as to why activity reports could not be located and must 

20 also outline all steps taken to make this determination. 

21 Second, defendant has represented that manifests belong to its customers and are 

22 not in defendant's care, custody, or control. [Doc. No. 274, at p. 8.] As a result, it is 

23 apparently defendant's position that plaintiff must pursue these documents by way of 

24 subpoenas duces tecum served directly on Affinity's customers. [Doc. No. 275, at p. 8; 

25 Doc. No. 275-8, at p. 5.] In this regard, defendant has represented that plaintiff has 

26 served subpoenas duces tecum on several of its customers. [Doc. No. 275.] However, 

27 this does not end the Court's inquiry. Particularly when a third party is located out of this 

28 District, the Court is aware that pursuing documents by way of a subpoena duces tecum 

7 

05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 10
1 can not only be time-consuming and expensive but can also result in unnecessary delays 

2 in reaching the merits of an action. As stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, the 

3 Court's role is to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action 

4 and proceeding." Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. 

5 In response to a request for production of documents, the discovery rules require 

6 parties to produce relevant documents in their "possession, custody, or control." 

7 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and 34(a)(I). "[A] party need not have actual possession of 

8 documents to be deemed in control of them." In re Folding Carton Antittrust Litigation, 

9 76 F.R.D. 420, 423 (N.D. Ill. 1977.) A party may be deemed in control of a document if 

10 it has the legal right to obtain it from a third party upon demand. Searock v. Stripling, 

11 736 F.2d 650, 653 (11th Cir. 1984). "The relationship between the party and the person 

12 or entity having actual possession of the document is central in each case .... This 

13 position of control is usually the result of statute, affiliation or employment." Estate of 

14 Young Through Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294 (D. Nev. 1991). 

15 Without more, it is unclear why defendant, by virtue of its relationship with 

16 customers, including Sears, Home Depot, and J.C. Penney, would not have the legal right 

17 to obtain and produce copies of relevant manifests. If defendant does not have the legal 

18 right to obtain and produce copies of relevant manifests, plaintiff is entitled to know why. 

19 Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling defendant to 

20 either obtain and produce relevant customer manifests or provide plaintiff with a detailed, 

21 explanatory declaration signed under penalty of perjury by defendant's most 

22 knowledgeable representative. The declaration must provide a complete explanation as 

23 to why responsive customer manifests cannot be obtained from customers and produced 

24 and must also outline all steps taken to make this determination. 

25 Request No.4 seeks "[a]ny and all Load OutlPay Reports for the Drivers." [Doc. 

26 No. 275, at p. 9.] Defendant represents that it has "made diligent efforts" but has been 

27 unable to locate these documents. [Doc. No. 275, at pp. 9-10; Doc. No. 275-8, at p. 4.] 

28 Defendant has not provided a satisfactory reason for its failure to produce these relevant 

8 

05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 10
1 documents. Defendant has only represented that its efforts to locate these documents 

2 included contacting attorneys "who are uninvolved in this matter, but might have access 

3 to legacy Mfinity documents as a result of their involvement in the transactions 

4 associated with the eventual acquisition of Mfinity .... " [Doc. No. 275, p. 10.] Plaintiff 

5 is understandably concerned that relevant documents may have been destroyed despite 

6 defendant's duty of preservation. 

7 Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling 

8 defendant to produce all documents responsive to Request No.4 for the relevant time 

9 period. To the extent these documents cannot be located, the Court finds that plaintiff is 

10 entitled to a detailed explanation. Accordingly, to the extent the requested documents 

11 cannot be located, the Court will also order defendant to provide plaintiff with a detailed 

12 declaration signed under penalty of perjury by Mfinity's most knowledgeable 

13 representative. The declaration must provide a complete explanation as to why 

14 responsive Load OutlPay Reports for the time period in question cannot be located and 

15 must also outline all steps taken to make this determination. 

16 Conclusion 

17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

18 (1) No later than March 4.2016, the parties shall submit a Joint Motion and 

19 proposed Stipulated Protective Order governing the exchange of confidential documents 

20 and information between the parties which specifically and sufficiently protects the 

21 privacy of any non-party information that may be produced as a result of this Order. 

22 (2) No later than March 25.2016, defendant shall produce full and complete 

23 responses to Document Request Nos. 1,2, and 4 subject to a stipulated Protective Order 

24 that specifically and sufficiently protects the privacy of any non-party! information that 

25 may be produced as a result of this Order. To the extent any documents or information 

26 

27 

28 "Non-party" refers to any individual or entity that is not included in the class 

defined by the District Court's Order of February 1,2016. [Doc. No. 289.] 

9 

05cv2125-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 10
1 cannot be located or obtained and produced by defendant, defendant shall provide 

2 plaintiff with a detailed declaration signed under the penalty of perjury by Affinity's most 

3 knowledgeable representative. The declaration must provide a complete explanation as 

4 to why responsive documents cannot be located and produced and outline all steps taken 

5 to make any such determination. 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: February 12016 

-V'k:-

Hon. ...... n , ... 

United States Magistrate Judge 

10 

OScv212S-JLS(KSC) 

Case 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC Document 292 Filed 02/22/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10