Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

*E-FILED 8/15/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAULO ARANDA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

NTH TELECOM, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-04738 JF (RS)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

MOTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Paulo Aranda brought this action contending he was improperly classed as “exempt”

while employed by defendant Nth Telecom, Inc. (“NTI”) and thereby deprived of overtime pay. A

dispute as to whether NTI has produced all “payroll records” related to Aranda spawned four

separate discovery motions, all of which were heard on August 15, 2007. As set forth below, the

motions will be granted in part, and denied in part. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Aranda’s motion to compel

1. Documents

Aranda moves to compel the production of his own payroll records and paycheck stubs

(Document Request Nos. 2 and 3) as well as the payroll records of any person who held the same

position as did Aranda (Request No. 18). As to records relating to Aranda, NTI insists that it has

produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control. NTI contends that certain

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 55 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

other documents that may exist or could be generated are outside the scope of the requests. At the

hearing, however, NTI agreed to produce any such documents, notwithstanding its position that the

requests should not be read so broadly. NTI shall do so within 15 days of the date of this order.

As to Request No. 18, Aranda’s claim of relevance is too attenuated to support compelling

disclosure of other persons’ payroll records, particularly given the privacy concerns that would be

implicated. Accordingly, no further response to the request will be required.

2. Interrogatories

Aranda seeks to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 3, relating to his work

schedule. NTI’s response is quite detailed, and appears to reflect accurately that Aranda’s schedule

was somewhat flexible, and varied over the course of his employment. Aranda complains that the

response does not disclose details such as starting and stopping times and total hours worked, but it

is clear from the response that his schedule was not fixed in that manner. No further response will

be required.

Interrogatory No. 12 seeks the identity of other employees who held the same or similar

positions. Although no particular privacy attaches to those persons’ identities, Aranda indicates his

desire is to depose such persons to inquire about how they were compensated. Again, Aranda has

failed to show anything beyond the most tenuous relevance, and no further response will be

required.

B. NTI’s motion to compel deposition

Aranda refused to go forward with his own deposition upon learning that additional

documents might exist that he believed should be produced. Aranda’s preference to have the benefit

of further document production by NTI before providing testimony did not justify his refusal to

appear for deposition as noticed. Nevertheless, in the interests of efficiency and to preclude

subsequent disputes, Aranda will not be compelled to appear for deposition at any time before two

business days after NTI has made the further production as required in Section A above. Within

those constraints, the parties shall cooperate to schedule the deposition as promptly as practicable. 

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 55 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

C. NTI’s motion to compel interrogatory responses

NTI seeks to compel further responses to its first set of interrogatories. Aranda again

complains that his ability to respond is hampered by not having additional documents. Aranda was

under a duty to respond based on all facts and information presently available to him. Again in the

interests of efficiency and to preclude subsequent disputes, Aranda will not be compelled to provide

further responses until NTI has made the further production or provided the declaration as required

in Section A above, but shall do so within 7 business days thereafter.

D. NTI’s motion for a protective order

Because Aranda has failed to show that the compensation of other persons has any

meaningful relevance and because of the privacy interests involved, NTI’s motion for a protective

order is granted. In responding to the subpoena served on it, the custodian of records for Automatic

Data Processing shall only produce responsive documents specifically relating to Paulo Aranda.

E. Sanctions

Civil Local Rule 7-8 requires all requests for sanctions to be made by separately-noticed

motion. NTI’s requests for sanctions are denied.

III. CONCLUSION

 The discovery motions heard on August 15, 2007, are each granted to the extent set forth

above, and are otherwise denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 55 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS

C 06-04738 JF (RS)

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Grant Andrew Carlson gcarlson@go4law.com, sgoetz@go4law.com

Adam Wang aqwang@dalbonandwang.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 8/15/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 55 Filed 08/15/07 Page 4 of 4