Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05421-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05421-RS (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 1/30/17 JOINT 

LETTER RE REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 7, 41 

& 59

Re: Dkt. No. 58

On January 30, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Plaintiffs’ Requests for 

Production Nos. 7, 41, and 59, which seek pay and time records for Plaintiffs and putative class 

members during the relevant time period. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 58.) Defendant only produced 

responsive documents pertaining to the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that documents 

pertaining to the putative class are necessary to determine whether class certification requirements 

are met. (Joint Letter at 1.)

Upon review of the joint letter, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court orders 

Defendant to produce responsive documents for a 25% sample of the putative class.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Shoan Robinson and Sean Clark assert individual and class action claims against 

Defendant The Chef’s Warehouse West Coast, LLC, alleging wage and hour violations, as well as 

various discrimination claims. The proposed class consists of “[a]ll persons employed by 

Defendant [ ] in the State of California as a Driver, Driver Trainer, or Dispatcher at any time on or 

after October 26, 2011.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) Defendant previously represented that there 

are approximately 100 putative class members. (Dkt. No. 57 at 2.)

In its supplemental responses to the requests for production, dated November 16, 2016, 

Defendant offered to provide a “sampling of putative class members’ ” time records 

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

“for the time period of June 25, 2014 to present” with identifying information redacted. (See Joint 

Letter at 1, Ex. 2 at 2.) Thereafter, Defendant reneged on the agreement after consulting with its 

expert regarding the size of the class. (Joint Letter at 2.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has 

the right to the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery need not 

be admissible to be discoverable. Id. The court, however, “must limit the frequency or extent of 

discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, 

or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope 

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Furthermore, “[t]he court may, for good 

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

undue burden or expense,” including by precluding discovery, by conditioning disclosure or 

discovery on specified terms, by preventing inquiry into certain matters, or by limiting the scope 

of discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on 

the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is 

required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

“District courts have broad discretion to control the class certification process, and whether 

or not discovery will be permitted lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Vinole v. 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of pay and time records despite an apparent 

inability to make a prima facie showing that they can satisfy the requirements for class 

certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiff argues that the discovery is 

necessary to determine whether certification requirements are met, including typicality and 

commonality. (Joint Letter at 1.)

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

A. Request for Production No. 7

Request No. 7 seeks the production of “All TIME CARDS referencing PLAINTIFF or 

CLASS MEMBERS during the CLASS PERIOD.” (Joint Letter, Ex. 1 at 1.) Defendant answered 

subject to its objections, and stated that it “offered to produce a sampling of putative class 

members’ time cards for the time period of June 25, 2014 to the present with names and other 

identifying information, including contact information, redacted (id number only).” (Joint Letter, 

Ex. 2 at 2.) Defendant reiterates the same arguments that it did in the other January 30, 2017 joint 

letter, which concerned Interrogatory No. 2. (Dkt. No. 57.) Namely, that both plaintiffs lack 

typicality due to declarations they filed in the Chicas matter, and that neither named plaintiff can 

serve as a class representative because their claims must be dismissed pursuant to the Motor 

Carrier Exemption. (Joint Letter at 2-3.) The Court found neither argument availing for the reasons 

set forth in that order, and hereby incorporates that analysis herein. (See 3/3/17 Order re: 

Interrogatory No. 2, Dkt. No. 72.)

Furthermore, the Court understands that Defendant had previously agreed to produce 

discovery for the entire class period despite the Chicas settlement, but its supplemental responses 

now attempt to limit their responsive documents to the period after Chicas, which is June 25, 

2014. (See Dkt. No. 34 at 3.) At first blush, this appears to be gamesmanship on Defendant’s part, 

and the Court does not look kindly on this type of conduct, which surely runs afoul of the 

Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct.

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Defendant to produce responsive documents 

insofar as they are proportional to the needs of the case, and finds a 25% sample to be fair and 

proportional. The Court does not believe Defendant’s claim that producing the information for 

25% of approximately 100 current and former employees would be unduly burdensome. (See Joint 

Letter at 3.) The sample shall be random, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding 

how the sample should be selected. Defendant is ordered to produce the documents generally

without redaction, with the exception of social security numbers, as general privacy concerns 

should be ameliorated by the stipulated protective order currently in effect. The Court does not 

have the benefit of knowing what other information is contained in these documents, so to the 

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

extent that Defendant believes that other information should be redacted, the parties shall meet and 

confer in good faith before seeking further court intervention.

B. Request for Production No. 41

Request No. 41 seeks the production of 

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payroll records for an all 

DOCUMENTS that set forth a record of the time worked by 

PLAINTIFF or CLASS MEMBERS for YOU, including but not 

limited to payroll data, actual compensation records, pay stub 

records, verification of payment for services rendered, time cards, 

login/out records, sign-in/out sheets, time sheets, work schedules, 

security tapes, sales/job tickets, computer logs, alarm records, or 

reports.

(Joint Letter, Ex. 1 at 2.) Defendant again answered subject to objection and “offered to produce a 

sampling of putative class members’ schedules, time cards, and wage statements for the time 

period of June 25, 2014 to the present with names and other identifying information, including 

contact information, redacted (id number only).” (Joint Letter, Ex. 2 at 4.)

Both sides incorporated by reference their positions made in connection with Request for 

Production No. 7. Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to produce a 25% sample of 

documents responsive to Request No. 41, and to do so without redacting identifying information 

other than social security numbers. The sample shall consist of the same individuals whose 

documents are produced by way of random sample in connection with Request No. 7.

C. Request for Production No. 59

Request No. 59 seeks “All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO when any PLAINTIFF or 

CLASS MEMBERS took meal periods during work shifts for DEFENDANT.” (Joint Letter, Ex. 1 

at 3.) Defendant answered subject to objection and “offered to produce a sampling of putative 

class members’ time cards for the time period of June 25, 2014 to the present with names and 

other identifying information, including contact information, redacted (id number only).” (Joint 

Letter, Ex. 2 at 6.)

Both sides again incorporated by reference their positions made in connection with 

Request for Production No. 7. Accordingly, the Court orders Defendant to produce a 25% sample 

of documents responsive to Request No. 59, and to do so without redacting identifying 

information other than social security numbers. Again, the sample shall consist of the same 

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

individuals whose documents are produced by way of random sample in connection with Request 

No. 7.

IV. CONCLUSION

As set forth above, Defendant is ordered to produce the responsive document for the 25% 

sample within 21 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05421-RS Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 5