Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867-8/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 5/9/07*

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 DAVID HO, et al.

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP ,

Defendant. /

Case No. C05-04867 JF (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND

INFORMATION

Re: Docket No. 40

In this putative class action, plaintiff employee contends that defendant employer

improperly treated him and other employees as "professionals" exempt from California's

overtime laws. No class has yet been certified. Plaintiff now moves to compel defendant to

produce time and activity records for all members of the putative class, as well as names and

addresses of all members of the putative class.

Although no formal discovery bifurcation order has been issued, the parties appear to

agree that discovery should, for now, focus on whether or not a class may be certified. Plaintiff

contends that the discovery at issue in this motion falls within that category. Defendant

naturally takes the opposite stance.

The job classifications subject to this order are Staff One, Staff Two, Senior One, and

Senior Two.

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 59 Filed 05/09/07 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 Plaintiff's moving papers discuss "time and billing records" but it is clear that

plaintiff seeks activity descriptions rather than billing information. 

2 Plaintiff's moving papers also mention Request No. 2, but this request does

not encompass time and billing records, so the court concludes that its

inclusion was unintentional.

Request No. 1 reads: "Produce all documents such as time cards, daily

attendance records, sign in/out sheets or similar documents that contain

information showing the amount (hours or fractions thereof) of work

performed by the plaintiff and others similarly situated on a daily or weekly or

other basis and/or such records that document or record the amount of time or

dates that such persons were present on the defendant's business premises

whether or not such persons were engaged in any employment for the

defendant during such time period."

2

A. Time and Activity Records1

Plaintiff seeks production of the defendant's electronic time and activity records for the 

putative class members, as described in his First Request for Production of Documents, Request

No. 1.2

 Defendant produced the named plaintiff's records, but initially refused to produce more,

objecting on grounds of relevance and overbreadth. Defendant offered a compromise,

producing records for a six month period in 2002 for certain job classifications.

Defendant argues that the information revealed by time records goes straight to the

merits of plaintiff's claims, and therefore this discovery is premature. This argument is

unfounded, because discovery can certainly be relevant both to class certification issues and to

the merits. Plaintiff reasonably articulated his theory of relevance to class certification issues:

these records may indicate whether the putative class members did work that was sufficiently

similar to justify a class action.

Defendant asserts that a limited sample of time and activity records would be sufficient

for plaintiff's professed purposes. In essence, this is an argument about costs and benefits, with

defendant contending that the cost of producing all of the records is not justified by the benefit

to plaintiff. In support of its contention, defendant argues that the process of preparing the

records for production is "time-consuming," due in part to the need to redact client names from

every record. However, a stipulated protective order is in place that allows defendants to

designate documents "confidential" and file them under seal, so long as the documents qualify

for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). If defendant, despite the protective

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 59 Filed 05/09/07 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 Request No. 7 reads "Identify and produce a list of the names and addresses

and all persons similarly situated to the plaintiff or if no such list exists or

defendant declines to comple such a list documents that contain such

information, including, but not limited to, W-2 and W-4 forms."

3

order, is queasy about releasing client names to plaintiff, it may redact the names. However, the

court does not see defendant's desire to redact client names as a sufficiently serious concern to

warrant any delay or limitation in production. The party resisting relevant, non-privileged

discovery has the burden of showing why discovery should not go forward. Blankenship v.

Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The court concludes that defendant has not

met its burden. Defendant shall produce the records by May 23, 2007.

B. Names and Addresses

Plaintiff also seeks a list of the names and addresses of all putative class members

(Request No. 7 of his First Request for Production of Documents).3 Plaintiff explains that he

wishes to contact potential class members so that they can offer evidence in support of

plaintiff's contention that the class members all did similar work. Defendant initially objected

on grounds of relevance, overbreadth, and privacy. Defendant later agreed to send "opt-out"

notices, through a third-party administrator, to 25% of the putative class members. These

notices would allow employees to choose not to have their contact information shared with

plaintiff. At the hearing, the parties represented that these notices have been sent and that

approximately 20% of the individuals contacted chose to opt out. Thus, plaintiff already has

access to approximately 600 putative class members. The parties agree about the opt-out

notification process, but disagree about whether notices should be sent to the remaining 75% of

the class.

Defendant argues that widespread evaluation of the job duties of all putative class

members would be discovery on the merits, and thus premature. This argument is misguided

for the same reason explained above with respect to time records: contact information is

relevant to both the merits and class certification.

Defendant contends that this discovery is "overbroad," because the plaintiff already has

contact information for approximately 600 putative class members. Defendant wants plaintiff

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 59 Filed 05/09/07 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 wait and see if he gets enough useful information from these individuals before seeking to

contact more people. However, defendant's frustration that plaintiff will not agree to a

compromise does not affect plaintiff's right to seek all relevant non-privileged discovery.

Defendant next argues that this discovery would be unduly burdensome in that it would

disturb defendant's business. Defendant asserts that employees receiving the opt-out notice can

be expected to "gossip," and that these conversations would be "inherently disruptive" to

defendant's business. Defendant makes no argument that the actual production of the list of

names and addresses would itself impose a burden. The court is not convinced (and defendant

cites no law indicating) that an increased number of employee discussions provoked by the

receipt of opt-out notices is the kind of burden cognizable by the court within the context of a

discovery dispute. Therefore, defendant shall immediately direct the neutral mailing service

previously used by the parties to mail the same opt-out notice to the remaining 75% of the

putative class members, following the procedure previously agreed upon. Plaintiff's motion is

GRANTED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/9/07 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 59 Filed 05/09/07 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 IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Catherine A. Conway cconway@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com 

Leon Greenberg wagelaw@aol.com 

Gregory William Knopp gknopp@akingump.com, dkucko@akingump.com 

Seth Adam Spiewak aspiewak@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com 

Mark R. Thierman laborlawyer@pacbell.net, kellyann@callatg.com; thier3@callatg.com;

thier4@callatg.com; thier6@callatg.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up

for e-filing.

Dated: 5/9/07 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 59 Filed 05/09/07 Page 5 of 5