Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02268/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02268-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MINERVA ABUBAKAR, et al., 

acting for themselves and others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2268 LKK EFB 

vs.

COUNTY OF SOLANO,

Defendant. 

 /

This case was before the undersigned on January 9, 2008, for hearing on plaintiffs’

motion to compel immediate production of documents. James B. Carr and Will Yamada

appeared as plaintiffs’ counsel and John Whitefleet appeared as defense counsel. For the reasons

stated at the hearing, and as set forth herein, plaintiffs’ motion is denied, as is their request for

sanctions. 

This action is proceeding on the first amended complaint, filed April 18, 2007, which

alleges causes of action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.

(“FLSA”). The claims arise from alleged unlawful overtime calculations for correctional

officers of the County of Solano. Approximately 155 employees have consented to be included

in this collective action, and discovery has ensued. 

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 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

2

The instant motion seeks to compel the production of documents by defendant despite

plaintiffs’ demands that defense counsel withdraw from this case. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ motion

to disqualify defense counsel from further representation of defendant in this action is currently

pending before the district judge . That motion is based on defense counsel’s brief

representation of nine of the plaintiffs in this action as witnesses in another action pending in this

district, Todd v. County of Solano, 2:07-cv-0726 FCD EFB – a class action concerning strip

searches at the Solano County jails. On October 11, 2007, defendant’s law firm, Porter Scott,

met with nine of the correctional officers who are plaintiffs in this action to interview them in

their capacity as witnesses in the Todd case regarding the training and practices concerning strip

searches in the Solano County Jail. After defense counsel discovered that the nine correctional

officers were also plaintiffs in this action, the Porter Scott firm withdrew from any further

representation of these officers as witnesses in the Todd case. Plaintiffs contend that this did not

resolve the conflict and when the defendant’s law firm declined to withdraw from this case

plaintiffs filed the motion to disqualify. In the meantime, the defendant’s law firm is facing

demands by plaintiffs that it take no further action to represent defendant, and at the same time,

demands that it move forward with the representation for the purposes of producing the

discovery. Plaintiffs refused defendant’s request that it waive the conflict for that limited

purpose.

Obviously, completing the remaining tasks as to the requested production requires

defense counsel to do the very thing that the motion to disqualify seeks to enjoin; that counsel

communicate with the client about the case and review the responsive documents to determine

relevance, any privileges, etc.

Although defendant timely served responses to the requests for production of documents,

it represented that it would make the responsive, voluminous documents available for inspection

at a mutually agreeable place and time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). By the time the agreed

upon inspection date arrived – December 10, 2007 – plaintiffs had demanded defense counsel’s

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 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

3

withdrawal from the case. On December 21, 2007, plaintiffs filed their formal motion to recuse

and disqualify.

Despite their position that defense counsel is disqualified from representing defendant in

this case, plaintiffs demand that defendant immediately make the responsive documents

available for inspection. The process required to make those documents available – including

communicating with defendant regarding arguably privileged documents – requires that defense

counsel represent defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for immediate production is

denied. Rather, the court orders defendant to produce the documents following the district

judge’s ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify. If the district judge denies plaintiffs’ motion,

defendant shall produce the responsive documents within thirty days after issuance of the district

judge’s order. In the event the district judge grants plaintiffs’ motion, the documents shall be

produced within thirty days of defendant’s retention of new counsel. 

Finally, plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions to “punish” defendant is denied. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(5) (where a discovery motion is granted, expenses may be awarded to compensate the

prevailing party for expenses incurred in bringing the motion, not to “punish” the losing party).

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 31, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02268-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 3