Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01247-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SABAS ARRENDONDO, et al., )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DELANO FARMS CO., et al., ) 

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:09cv01247 LJO DLB

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Document 43)

On July 16, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for discovery sanctions. The motion

was heard on July 30, 2010, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate

Judge. Jessica Arciniega and Thomas Lynch appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Sabas Arrendondo,

Jose Cuevas, Hilario Gomez, Irma Landeros and Rosalba Landeros, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated. Michael Johnson appeared on behalf of Defendants Delano Farms

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

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2009, five Named Plaintiffs filed this action alleging causes of action under

both federal and state law (Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, California

Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law) based on allegations that they were not

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

agricultural fields and packing sheds owned by Defendant Delano Farms. Defendants Cal1

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 54 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 4
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

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

Farms to provide its labor force. 

Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a motion for class certification is August 10, 2010, though the

parties are expected to submit a stipulation to extend the date.

On June 2, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel

production of documents. Among other things, Defendants were ordered to produce time records

and wage information for all potential class members. The Court stated, “To the extent that the

requested information is stored on a computer, Defendants SHALL produce the information for

all covered employees. As to Defendant Delano Farms, this request includes invoices, as well.”

Defendants provided supplemental responses on July 2, 2010. The responses consisted of

9 CD-ROMs containing Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets and scans of handwritten employee time

cards. 

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for sanctions on July 16, 2010. Defendants filed their

opposition on July 23, 2010, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 28, 2010. 

DISCUSSION

Based on their belief that Defendants failed to comply with the June 2 order, Plaintiffs

seek monetary and terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. At the

hearing, the parties were able to agree on a supplemental production, as set forth below. The

Court will therefore reserve ruling on the issue of sanctions until the completion of the

supplemental production.

A. Electronic Production of Employee Records

The bulk of Plaintiffs’ discovery complaints arise from Defendants’ production of

employee records in the form of Excel spreadsheets. Defendants exported information from

Datatech, their payroll software, to the spreadsheets and contend that the information appears as

kept in its native form. While Defendants also contend that the information is fully searchable,

Plaintiffs have identified numerous issues with the form of the production.

Plaintiffs now have the Datatech software and Defendants have agreed to export relevant

data from Datatech and produce it to Plaintiffs on a hard drive. Defendants estimated that ten

2

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 54 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 4
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

percent of the employees referenced in Datatech are not covered employees and they will

therefore delete such employees prior to production.

B. Handwritten Payroll Records

Defendants produced scans of handwritten time cards in the manner in which they were

stored. Plaintiffs argue, however, that they are not able to identify for which Defendant the

employee worked. At the hearing, Defendants stated that Defendants Cal-Pacific and T&R

Bangi are the only employers and agreed to provide an explanation in a supplemental response.

Plaintiffs also questioned whether Defendants utilized a software program for creating

time cards because at least one of the time cards produced appears to have been created

electronically. Although Defendants believed that all of the time cards were handwritten, they

have agreed to inquire whether there an electronic time keeping system was in use and whether

other electronic time cards exist. The parties are reminded to discuss the native format of the

information and any systems used, as well as the format of production, prior to supplementing

the response.

C. Invoices

Plaintiffs raise a similar issue as to the invoices produced by Defendants. Plaintiffs

believe that the invoices, which were kept in binders and scanned for production, were created

electronically. Defendants have represented to the Court, both in their briefing and during oral

argument, that invoices are not electronically stored.

D. Information Relating to Document Compilation and Retention

Defendants have represented that they do not have any responsive documents. 

E. Additional Witnesses

Finally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have belatedly produced an additional 280

witnesses despite their representation at the prior hearing that the 11 witnesses already identified

were likely the only witnesses. At the hearing, Defendants explained that the additional

witnesses were produced to update the list with names produced in response to a document

request. The list, however, is incomplete. Defendants agreed to provide additional information, 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 54 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 4
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

such as where, when and in what capacity the witness worked, for the witnesses who are likely to

be involved in the class certification process. 

ORDER

As discussed at the hearing, the parties SHALL meet and confer to develop a time line for

the supplemental production. The Court will not rule on the issue of sanctions at this time and

Plaintiffs’ may renew the request for sanctions, if necessary, after the supplemental production.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01247-MJS Document 54 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 4