Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02053/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02053-13/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

ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY M. LINDELL AND MARK POPE, ON 

BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER 

SIMILARLY SITUATED, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SYNTHES USA, SYNTHES USA SALES LLC, 

SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY, LP, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1: 11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff Troy Lindell (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action against defendants 

Synthes USA, Synthes USA Sales LLC, and Synthes Spine Company, LP (collectively, 

“Defendants” or “Synthes”) for violations of the California Labor Code and California Unfair 

Competition Law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maintained two expressly illegal policies and 

practices, including (1) failing to reimburse sales consultants for all necessary business expenses in 

violation of Cal. Labor Code § 2802, and (2) taking deductions for Synthes’ own business losses 

from sales consultants’ earned commissions in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 221, 223, and 300. 

On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further 

Responses to Interrogatories from Defendants. (Doc. 69.) The Court heard oral argument on June 

14, 2013. Counsel Angelica Jonco, Charles Taylor, Ana de Alba and Catha Worthman appeared

telephonically for Plaintiff. Counsel Anthony Haller appeared telephonically for Defendants. 

Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions and the entire record in this case, the Court 

GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 1 of 12
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

ORDER 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Rule 26(b) states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). “Relevant information need 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence.” Id. Relevance requires only that the evidence have “any” tendency to 

prove or disprove “any” consequential fact. This test incorporates two separate components: (1) 

Logical relevance, meaning the evidence must have some tendency, however slight, to make any fact 

more or less probable; and (2) Legal Relevance, meaning the evidence must relate to a fact “of 

consequence” to the case, i.e., will the “fact” that the evidence is offered to establish help in 

determining some issue in the case? See, Guthrey v. California Dept. of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, 2012 WL 2499938 (E.D. Cal. 2012), citing, Jones & Rosen, Federal Civil Trials and 

Evidence (2011) Evidence, para. 8:111, p. 8B-2. ‘Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove 

surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve 

their dispute.’ ” Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D.Cal.2005) (quoting Oakes v. 

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D.Cal.1998)).

A responding party that objects to interrogatories or requests for production of documents is 

required to state objections with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); 34(b)(2)(B). If the party 

requesting discovery is dissatisfied with any of the responses, the party may move to compel further 

responses by informing the court “which discovery requests are the subject of [the] motion to 

compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the [c]ourt why the information sought is relevant 

and why [the opposing party's] objections are not justified.” Ellis v. Cambra, No. 02-cv-5646 AWI 

(SMS), 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008); Brooks v. Alameida, No. 03-cv-2343 

JAM (EFB), 2009 WL 331358 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009).

Under Rule 26, a court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines any of 

the following: (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

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 2 of 12
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

2

ORDER 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the 

needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at 

stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) 

(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance [of discovery], the determination whether ... information is discoverable 

because it is relevant to the claims or defenses depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee's note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision 

(b)(1)).

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery seeks three categories of information: (1) responses 

to interrogatories and requests for production of documents supporting Defendants’ contention that 

class certification is not proper in this case (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Contention 

Interrogatories”); (2) class-wide discovery of information concerning expense reimbursement, 

deductions and wage statements (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Class-wide Discovery 

Requests”); and (3) communications with and among witnesses and/or putative class members

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Communications Discovery”). The Court addresses each in 

turn. 

1. Plaintiff’s Contention Discovery

Defendants’ Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses state that this action cannot be 

maintained as a class action. See, ECF No. 64 ¶¶ 39-44, 46-51 & 3rd Affirmative Defense. Plaintiff 

subsequently propounded the following interrogatories to explore this contention: 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 

With respect to YOUR contention that joinder of all members of the putative class in 

this action is not impracticable: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 

With respect to YOUR contention that there are not questions of law and fact 

common to the class that are answerable on a common basis classwide: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 3 of 12
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

ORDER 

With respect to YOUR contention that the claims alleged by PLAINTIFF are not 

typical of the claims of the putative class: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 

With respect to YOUR contention that PLAINTIFF will not fairly AND adequately 

represent the interests of the class: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 

With respect to YOUR contention that common questions of fact AND law do not 

predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the class: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 

With respect to YOUR contention that a class action is not superior to other available 

methods for the fair AND efficient adjudication of this litigation: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 

With respect to YOUR contention that class certification is not appropriate pursuant 

to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 

With respect to YOUR contention that class certification is not appropriate pursuant 

to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

A. State the bases (including ALL facts and the application of law to FACT) for such 

contention; AND 

B. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such contention. 

(Doc. 79, 12-13.) Among other arguments, Defendants’ primary objection/response to these 

interrogatories is as follows: 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES NOs.1- 8: 

Plaintiff has neither responded fully to Synthes’ Interrogatories to Troy Lindell (Set 

Two) which seek information in support of Plaintiff’s burden on class certification 

under Rule 23, nor moved for class certification where Plaintiff is required by law to 

carry the burden on each Rule 23 requirement. Since Plaintiff has not yet moved for 

class certification, and in fact, may never do so, the purported “contention” is not ripe 

for resolution or consideration. Accordingly, Defendant is unable to respond to the 

interrogatory because of ongoing discovery and investigation, and until Plaintiff 

actually files a motion for class certification, if ever, identifying the class he seeks to 

represent. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(a)(2) (a court may order that contention 

interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 4 of 12
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

ORDER 

pretrial conference or some other time); see also, Yingling v. eBay, Inc., 2010 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 12800, *7-8 (N.D, Cal. Jan. 29, 2010) (citing In re Priceline.com Inc. 

Sec. Litig., 233 F.R.D. 83, 86-87 (D. Conn. Nov. 23, 2005)). 

Plaintiff argues that because Defendants’ Answer disputes Plaintiff’s claims can be 

maintained as a class action, Plaintiff is entitled to know Defendants’ basis for this assertion. 

Defendants respond they should not be required to answer this interrogatory until they have “full 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s theories on class certification.” (Doc. 79, 17: 2-3.) Specifically, 

Defendants respond that it does not want to be “left in the predicament of having to respond to 

contention interrogatories regarding its defenses without having full knowledge of Plaintiffs’

theories on class certification, [and] that it would revisit its objections and respond once all other 

outstanding discovery has been finalized and Plaintiff supplemented his responses to Synthes’ mirror 

contention interrogatories with citations to record evidence as required by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. 

Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541.” (Doc. 79, 17, 1-6.) 

The Court will compel Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Contention Interrogatories. First, 

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has not properly responded to Defendants’ “mirror” 

interrogatories is irrelevant. “Discovery is not conducted on a ‘tit-for-tat’ basis.” National Academy 

of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc v. On Points Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678 (C.D. Cal. 2009); 

Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Maffei, 2006 WL 2709835, *5 n. 21 (D.Alaska 2006) (“The 

court does not consider ‘tit-for-tat’ objections to discovery to be legitimate objections. If the 

opposing party is recalcitrant in responding to discovery requests, the rules provide a mechanism for 

compelling responses and/or imposing sanctions. The rules do not authorize one party to withhold 

discoverable material in retaliation for the opposing party's withholding of discoverable material.”) 

Plaintiff’s purported nonresponse to Defendant’s discovery is not grounds for refusing to respond to 

propounded discovery. 

Second, Defendants’ argument that Defendants should not be required to respond to 

Plaintiff’s contention interrogatories until Plaintiff supplements his responses with citations to the 

record is without merit. Defendants’ interrogatories, which were propounded on Plaintiff, do not 

request Plaintiff to tether his responses to evidence in the record. See, Doc. 80, Attach. 3 (Defendant 

requested Plaintiff “(a) state the basis (including all facts and the application of LAW to facts) for 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 5 of 12
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

ORDER 

such contention, and do so separately for the Reimbursement Claim and Deduction Claim; (b) State 

each fact common to the putative class, and do so separately for the Reimbursement Claim and the 

Deduction Claim; (c) State each legal issue, with citations to supporting case law, common to the 

putative class; (d) identify each person who has knowledge of any such contention.” Moreover, 

Walmart v. Dukes does not require Plaintiff to provide citations to the record in responding to 

interrogatories. Dukes does not change a representative plaintiff’s burden in responding to 

interrogatories under Rule 33. Rather, Dukes concerned the burden placed on plaintiffs seeking Rule 

23 certification. See, Dukes, 131 S. Ct at 2546 (“We consider whether the certification of the 

plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).”) Indeed, in 

light of Dukes’ requirement that putative plaintiffs “affirmatively demonstrate his compliance” with 

Rule 23, Id. at 2551, Courts must liberally apply discovery rules during a bifurcated class discovery 

phase to permit plaintiff to meet that burden. 

Third, these Contention Interrogatories, contrary to Defendants’ suggestion, do not ask 

Defendants to speculate on what arguments Plaintiff may offer at the class certification stage. These 

Contention Interrogatories ask Defendants to explain the contentions presented in Defendants’ 

Answer, i.e., that this action cannot be maintained as a class action. Presumably, Defendants had, 

and continue to have, a basis for making the allegations in their Answer. Moreover, between the 

allegations of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ 

contention interrogatories, Defendants have substantial notice of Plaintiff’s theories on class 

certification.

2. Plaintiff’s Class-wide Discovery

Plaintiffs have propounded the following interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents seeking information regarding expense reimbursement and wage deductions for the entire 

class: 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 

During the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD, for each instance in which a SALES 

CONSULTANT who was paid STRAIGHT COMMISSION received an in-territory 

expense reimbursement or an open territory expense reimbursement, as referred to by 

YOUR 30(b)(6) witness, Jacqueline Meister, provide the following: 

A. IDENTIFY each expense reimbursement by date, amount, and name of the 

SALES CONSULTANT who received the expense reimbursement; 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 6 of 12
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

ORDER 

B. IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED to each expense reimbursement; 

C. IDENTIFY ALL COMMUNICATIONS made by ANY PERSON RELATED to 

such expense reimbursement, and IDENTIFY the PERSON making such 

COMMUNICATION; AND 

D. IDENTIFY each PERSON who has any knowledge of such expense 

reimbursement. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: 

ALL copies, electronically stored or not, of wage statements (as described in Cal. 

Lab. Code § 226) for SALES CONSULTANTS who are paid STRAIGHT 

COMMISSION that identify the amounts that represent reimbursement for the 

SALES CONSULTANT’S expenses, if any. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: 

ALL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT RECORDS reflecting in-territory expense 

reimbursements provided to SALES CONSULTANTS receiving STRAIGHT 

COMMISSION during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: 

ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting requests for reimbursements for in-territory expenses 

by SALES CONSULTANTS receiving FULL COMMISSION during the 

RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: 

ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting YOUR responses to requests for reimbursements for 

in-territory expenses by SALES CONSULTANTS receiving FULL COMMISSION 

during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: 

ALL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT RECORDS reflecting out-of-territory expense 

reimbursements provided to SALES CONSULTANTS receiving FULL 

COMMISSION while covering a territory for another SALES CONSULTANT 

during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: 

ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting requests for reimbursements for out-of-territory 

expenses by SALES CONSULTANTS receiving FULL COMMISSION while 

covering a territory for another SALES CONSULTANT during the RELEVANT 

TIME PERIOD. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65: 

ALL DOCUMENTS reflecting YOUR responses to requests for reimbursements for 

out-of-territory expenses by SALES CONSULTANTS receiving FULL 

COMMISSION while covering a territory for another SALES CONSULTANT 

during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: 

DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify the number and dollar amount of deductions 

taken each year from ALL SALES CONSULTANTS during the RELEVANT TIME 

PERIOD. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: 

The wage statements for ALL SALES CONSULTANTS for the final pay periods of 

each year during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 7 of 12
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

7

ORDER 

(Doc. 79, 20-31.) 

Among other objections, Defendants primarily object to these requests for three reasons: (1)

these requests are beyond the scope of permissible discovery during a bifurcated class discovery 

phase, or the requests are otherwise irrelevant to issues of class certification; (2) responding to these 

requests is unduly burdensome; and (3) Defendants have already produced a representative sample 

of this class-wide information. (Doc. 79, 20-31.) 

The Court will compel Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Class-wide Discovery. Plaintiffs’ 

Class-wide discovery requests are relevant to issues of both the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and class 

certification. Plaintiff’s expense reimbursement and wage deduction discovery is relevant towards 

determining the as-applied policies at issue in this case. This information has significant bearing on 

issues such as predominance and commonality under Rule 23. The fact that this information 

simultaneously concerns the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims is insignificant. “Discovery relating to class 

certification is closely enmeshed with merits discovery, and in fact cannot be meaningfully 

developed without inquiry into basic issues of the litigation.” Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 

F.R.D. 39, 41 (N.D.Cal.1990); see also, Yingling v. ebay, Inc., 2010 WL 373868 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 

(“As a general matter, the discovery sought in this category may be relevant to issues of 

commonality and predominance. And the discovery sought relates to the merits of the action. Other 

courts have noted that ‘discovery can certainly be relevant both to class certification issues and to the 

merits.’ Ho v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2007 WL 1394007” (N.D. Cal. 2007)). As noted above, this 

Court believes the Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes requires trial courts to apply a liberal 

approach in conducting class discovery. 

The Court does not find Plaintiff’s Class-wide Discovery requests impose an undue burden 

on Defendants. Defendants argue its tracking systems do not segregate data in the manner requested 

in the discovery requests, thus, Defendants would have to manually review and segregate certain 

information before responding. 

On a motion to compel discovery, the party from whom electronically stored information is 

sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). If such a showing is made, a court may nonetheless order discovery 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 8 of 12
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

8

ORDER 

from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. (b)(2)(C). A court may limit discovery of electronic materials under F.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) 

if: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some 

other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking 

discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account 

the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues 

at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

Defendants have not made a showing that the requested information is inaccessible because 

of undue burden or cost. Indeed, despite a forty-five page joint statement, Defendants did not 

present any evidence that responding to these requests is unduly burdensome. See e.g., Panola Land 

Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir.1985) (conclusory recitations of expense and 

burdensomeness are not sufficiently specific to demonstrate why requested discovery is 

objectionable). At oral argument, Defendants’ counsel waited until the waning moments of the 

hearing to note that it took one individual three days to assimilate a representative sample for sixteen 

putative class members. 

Even assuming, however, Defendants’ representations are completely accurate, Plaintiff’s 

requests are not overly burdensome. The fact that Defendants do not segregate the data in the precise 

manner it is requested and would be required to manually review some of the data entries does not 

make Plaintiff’s requests inaccessible “because of undue burden or cost.” Moreover, Plaintiff has 

shown good cause for the information, because it is highly relevant towards Plaintiff’s burden to 

demonstrate commonality and predominance at class certification. Finally, the Court notes that the 

entire putative class consists of 175 people, and Defendants have already provided this information 

for approximately 15% of the class. The Court does not find that providing this information for the 

rest of the class is overly burdensome. 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 9 of 12
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

ORDER 

 3. Communications Discovery 

Plaintiffs have propounded the following requests for production of documents seeking 

information regarding communications and related documents for two categories of information: (1) 

communications between seventeen individuals identified in Defendants’ initial disclosures 

concerning the “subject matter” of this action; and (2) communications with 30 putative class 

members who are filing declarations on Defendant’s behalf: 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: 

ALL COMMUNICATIONS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD 

CONCERNING the SUBJECT MATTERS of this ACTION with the individuals 

identified in YOUR INITIAL DISCLOSURES, including LINDELL, Jacqueline 

Meister, Indiya Hynd, Lilian Early, David 

Wholey, Erik Sorenson, Jay Edington, Cynthia Shillinglaw, Steve Bertz, Mike 

Landau, Bob Bennett, Laurie Hurley, Dave Waibel, Melonie Andrews, Shelly Ray, 

Joan Rabuck, and Kristen Sweeney. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: 

ALL DOCUMENTS authored by the individuals identified in YOUR INITIAL 

DISCLOSURES during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD CONCERNING the 

SUBJECT MATTERS of this ACTION, including LINDELL, Jacqueline Meister, 

Indiya Hynd, Lilian Early, David Wholey, Erik Sorenson, Jay Edington, Cynthia 

Shillinglaw, Steve Bertz, Mike Landau, Bob Bennett, Laurie Hurley, Dave Waibel, 

Melonie Andrews, Shelly Ray, Joan Rabuck, and Kristen Sweeney. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: 

ALL COMMUNICATIONS during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD 

CONCERNING the SUBJECT MATTERS of this ACTION with Michael Abel, 

Quinn Baker, John D. Bartlett, Craig Becky, Elliot Bloom, James Bommarito, John 

Branco, Michael Bruce, Jason Buran, Ryan Edwards, Wade Felty, Bill Gardner, 

David Gennett, Toby Goeckeritz, Raymond Hahn, Captain Hayes, Julia Heil, Alex 

Hollowell, Ryan Loizu, Timothy McDermott, Eric Miller, Benjamin Minor, Bryan 

Murray, Ryan Pratt, Aaron Price, Paul Reitmeier, Brent Scurci, William Thiele, 

Albert Turner, and Jay Wisner, and any other author of any DOCUMENT produced 

in response to Request for Production No. 52, above. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NOS. 53-55: 

Defendant specifically objects to th[ese]Request[s] on the grounds that the definition 

of "All" contained in the Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing; 

and the definition of "Subject Matters of this Action" is overly broad, vague, and 

ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 

duplicative of earlier discovery requests; overly broad; infringes upon the right to 

privacy; burdensome, oppressive, and harassing; vague and ambiguous insofar as the 

Request is open-ended and fails to identify with whom the identified individuals had 

communications; vague and ambiguous with regard to the term "any other author"; 

seeks disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the 

attorney work-product doctrine; and seeks documents that are not relevant to the 

precertification proceedings. 

The Court will sustain Defendants’ objections that the requests are overbroad. Under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A), a request for production must describe an item “with reasonable 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 10 of 12
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

10

ORDER 

particularity,” which requires the responding party to give reasonable notice of what is required. 

Chatman v. Felker, CIV S–03–2415 JAM KJM P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4747, at *19 (E.D. Cal. 

January 23, 2009), citing Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 219 F.R.D. 430, 436 (N.D. Ill. 2004). 

Plaintiff fails to identify documents with reasonable particularity. Based on Plaintiff’s

definitions of the terms “communications,” “relevant time period,” “concerning,” and “subject 

matter of this action,” these requests ask for every written, oral or electronic transmission of 

information referring to, describing, evidencing or constituting Defendants’ compensation, expense 

reimbursement, deduction or commission policies and practices over the last six years. These

requests to not describe the sought items with “reasonable particularity.” Further, these requests 

seek information well beyond the scope of the First Amended Complaint. This case concerns 

Defendant’s expense reimbursement and wage deduction practices. These document requests seek 

communications which encompasses every communication related to expenses or wages. 

Accordingly, the categories are overbroad and not stated with reasonable particularity. 

D. Plaintiffs’ Document Requests Number 49 & 50

Plaintiffs also propounded the following document requests seeking all documents related to 

Defendants’ interrogatory responses:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: 

ALL DOCUMENTS referred to, relied upon, or consulted in YOUR responses to 

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49: 

Defendant specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of 

“Your” contained in the Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds it seeks disclosure of 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-produce 

doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 

burdensome and oppressive; overly broad; and premature. Defendant further objects 

to this Request on the ground that it is inconsistent with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each 

documents or category of documents to be produced. Subject to and without waiving 

the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiff to documents bearing bates nos. 

SYNTHES 00602-00603, 002723-002733, 003091, and 001775-1779, which 

Defendant has already produced. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50: 

ALL DOCUMENTS that support your responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of 

Interrogatories to Defendants. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50: 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 11 of 12
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

11

ORDER 

Defendant specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that the definition of

“Your” contained in the Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds it seeks disclosure of 

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-produce 

doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 

burdensome and oppressive; overly broad; and premature. Defendant further objects 

to this Request on the ground that it is inconsistent with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure because it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each 

documents or category of documents to be produced. Subject to and without waiving 

the foregoing objections, Defendant refers Plaintiff to documents bearing bates nos. 

SYNTHES 00602-00603, 002723-002733, 003091, and 001775-1779, which 

Defendant has already produced. 

(Doc. 79, 42: 10-22.) 

The Court will sustain Defendants’ overbroad objections. These document requests 

fail to describe the sought items with reasonable particularity, and are overbroad. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). The Court will not compel further responses to these requests. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART, and DENIES IN PART 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery. (Doc. 69). 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to the following 

discovery requests: 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; and

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Number 51, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 & 67. 

Defendants shall provide further responses to these discovery requests no later than July 1, 2013. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery to the following 

discovery requests:

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Number 49, 50, 53, 54 & 55. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 82 Filed 06/18/13 Page 12 of 12