Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01066-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BECKY GREER, TIMOTHY C. BUDNIK, 

ROSARIO SAENZ, IAN CARTY, HALEY 

MARKWITH, MARIA GARCIA PESINA, and

MONICA MULDROW, individually and as 

class representatives, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and IBEW 

LOCAL 1245,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01066-EPG

 

ORDER AFTER HEARING RE: 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 106)

On December 9, 2016, this Court heard the motions to compel of Plaintiffs Becky Greer, 

Timothy C. Budnik, Rosario Saenz, Ian Carty, Haley Markwith, Maria Garcia Pesina, and Monica 

Muldrow and Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”). (ECF Nos. 106, 113.) Patrick 

Toole and Erin Huntington appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Aurelio Perez appeared on behalf of 

Defendant PG&E. Philip Monrad appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant IBEW Local 

1245. The Court further considered the arguments of counsel on the record at the time of the 

hearing. The Court ruled from the bench on the motions and incorporates those rulings herein. 

Case 1:15-cv-01066-EPG Document 119 Filed 12/13/16 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

2

For the reasons described on the record and in this Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 

DENIES IN PART the motions to compel and issues the following written order confirming its 

rulings thereon. Any supplemental responses or productions described in this Order shall be due 

no later than 30 days after the date of this Order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel -- Special Interrogatories Nos. 1—4

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 of their 

First Set of Special Interrogatories. In particular, Plaintiffs request clarifications and corrections 

to a spreadsheet PG&E produced to respond to these interrogatories, as well as a codebook to 

assist in interpreting the codes used in the spreadsheet. 

For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. The parties are

DIRECTED to meet and confer with respect to any inaccuracies in the spreadsheet and to agree to 

an “official” version of the spreadsheet that is to be used for any motions for class certification, 

summary judgment, or for trial.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel -- Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15 of their 

Fourth Set of Special Interrogatories. At the hearing, Plaintiffs withdrew their motion to compel 

Special Interrogatory No. 15 and stated that they had narrowed the scope of their request to 

request only an identification of which documents were used in PG&E’s hiring process and the 

specific dates for which those documents were used. 

As explained on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. PG&E shall supplement its 

response to this interrogatory to provide any available information regarding the dates that each 

document was used in the hiring process.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel -- Requests for Document Production Nos. 4, 5, and 9

Plaintiffs move to compel a further response to Requests for Production Nos. 4, 5, and 9, 

which requested information regarding job descriptions, advertisements, and communications 

between PG&E and third party recruiters. After discussion, Plaintiffs narrowed their request to 

Case 1:15-cv-01066-EPG Document 119 Filed 12/13/16 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

3

communications between PG&E employees Jessica Ishibashi and Vanessa Vera and third party 

recruiters PeopleScout and HireRight. 

For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART. PG&E 

shall conduct an electronic search for communications PG&E had with PeopleScout and/or 

HireRight. Ishibashi and Vera shall be the document custodians for this search and the search 

shall include the terms: “SR I,” “Service Representative I,” and any equivalent job classification 

or identification number. The search shall include communications between June 2012 and June 

2015. 

The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer regarding the necessity and costs of 

further searches on backup tapes. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel -- Additional Depositions

Plaintiffs request leave to conduct depositions of Yvonne Bradley and Francis WilderDavis of PG&E and Dave Sankey, Jennifer Grey, and Mark Rollow of IBEW Local 1245. 

For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

Plaintiffs may conduct depositions of Yvonne Bradley and Francis Wilder-Davis. The parties are 

directed to meet and confer with respect to the other witnesses. The Court does not grant leave for 

any individual deposition to extend over seven hours in length, but does not otherwise limit the 

time for these depositions.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel -- Requests for Admission Nos. 133, 134, and 135

Plaintiffs move to compel further responses from PG&E to Requests for Admission Nos. 

133, 134, and 135, arguing that PG&E did not include a basis for its denials of these requests. 

For the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. PG&E is 

directed to provide amended responses to these requests for admission. In particular, PG&E shall 

admit the requests, deny them based on a lack of knowledge, or deny them and explain some 

other basis for the denials.

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:15-cv-01066-EPG Document 119 Filed 12/13/16 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

4

Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Defendants’ Motion to Compel – Special Interrogatory No. 5

Defendants move to compel a further response to their Special Interrogatory No. 5 from 

Plaintiff Haley Markwith describing the amount of wage damages she alleges she suffered. 

For the reasons set forth on the record, Defendants’ Motion is granted. Plaintiffs shall 

provide a supplemental response explaining the basis for Markwith’s asserted damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01066-EPG Document 119 Filed 12/13/16 Page 4 of 4