Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00120-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN TREVINO, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

LEAD CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM

Member Case No. 1:18-cv-00121

Member Case No. 1:18-cv-00567

Member Case No. 1:18-cv-01176

Member Case No. 1:17-cv-01300

ORDER REGARDING INFORMAL 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(Docs. 226, 228)

 Plaintiffs Juan Trevino, Christopher Ward, Linda Quinteros, Romeo Palma, Alberto

Gianini and Juan C. Avalos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this

consolidated class action against defendants Golden State FC, LLC (now known as Amazon.com

Services LLC), Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (now known as

Amazon.com Services LLC) (collectively, “Amazon”). Plaintiffs moved for class certification 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). (Docs. 96, 98.) On May 26, 

2023, following a lengthy procedural history not recounted here, the undersigned issued amended 

findings and recommendations that recommended granting in part and denying in part the motion 

for class certification. (Doc. 205.) Specifically, the Court recommended the motion for class 

certification be denied as to the following classes: Class 1 Unpaid Wage Class (Hours Worked 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 13
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

Claim Based on Control of Employees through Mandatory Exit Security Procedures); Class 2 

Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Meal Periods); Class 3 Meal Period Violations for Controlled 

Meal Periods; Class 4 Rest Periods Violations for Controlled Rests Periods; Class 5 Improper 

Rounding Class; and Class 7 (Third Rest Period Class). The Court recommended granting 

certification limited to the following classes: Class 6 (Invalid Second Meal Period Waiver Class); 

Class 8 (Direct Violation of Section 226(a)(2) Wage Statement Class); Class 9 (Derivative Wage 

Statement Class); Class 10 (Section 203 Subclass); and Class 11 (UCL Class). (Id.) 

The amended findings and recommendations were submitted to then-District Judge Ana 

de Alba. (Doc. 205.) On December 1, 2023, due to the elevation of Judge de Alba to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, the case was temporarily reassigned to No District Court Judge (NODJ) 

until a new district judge was appointed. (Doc. 208.) In light of the assignment of the case to No 

District Court Judge, the Court held a status conference with the parties on January 17, 2024. The 

parties agreed to meet and confer to discuss potential settlement parameters and the opening of 

discovery only on the classes recommended for certification. (Doc. 215.)

On March 14, 2024, due to the appointment of a new district judge, the action was 

reassigned from No District Court Judge (NODJ) to District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. (Doc. 216.) 

The findings and recommendations remain pending before the currently assigned district judge.

On March 20, 2024, the Court held a further status conference to address (1) Plaintiffs’

request to reopen discovery and (2) the proposed settlement in the MDL action pending in the 

Western District of Kentucky: In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards 

Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 (W.D. Ky.). The 

Court indicated its willingness to consider reopening discovery only on the claims recommended 

for class certification and the PAGA claim. However, before opening such discovery, the Court 

requested supplemental briefing from the parties concerning Plaintiffs’ request to reopen and 

Amazon’s objections to reopening. (Doc. 219.)

On April 19, 2024, Amazon filed a letter brief objecting to Plaintiffs’ request to reopen 

discovery. (Doc. 226.) 

On April 23, 2024, Amazon filed a notice indicating that on April 18, 2024, the Honorable 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 13
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

David. J. Hale issued a memorandum and order in In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center 

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 

(W.D. Ky.). Judge Hale lifted the stay of proceedings in that action, denied the Trevino

Plaintiffs’ motion to intervene, and granted preliminary approval of the parties’ proposed

settlement, including by conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class and subclasses.

1

 

(Doc. 227.) According to Amazon, the settlement administrator was to mail out class notice and 

opt-out forms no later than May 22, 2024. A final approval hearing was set for August 16, 2024. 

(Doc. 227 at 24, Ex. 1.) Amazon anticipates that the settlement will impact several of Plaintiffs’ 

claims in this action predicated on security screening. (See Doc. 145.) Amazon intends to seek 

relief from this Court as appropriate if Judge Hale grants final approval of the settlement and 

enters judgment in the MDL action. (Id.)

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted their response to Amazon’s informal letter brief 

regarding discovery. (Doc. 228.) 

To date, the parties have not provided information concerning the status of In re: 

Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour 

Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 (W.D. Ky.), including the status of the final approval 

hearing and any impact on the pending action. 

///

1

Judge Hale conditionally certified the following class for settlement purposes:

All non-exempt employees employed by Amazon in California who worked at an 

Amazon.com warehouse facility (fulfillment centers and sortation centers) (“Covered 

Facilities”) from October 1, 2012, until the date that the preliminary approval of the 

proposed settlement is ordered (“Class Members”).

(a) The Pre-May 2013 Subclass is defined as: Those Class Members who were 

employed by Amazon in California and who worked at an Amazon.com 

Covered Facility from October 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013.

(b) The Post-May 2013 Subclass is defined as: Those Class Members who were 

employed by Amazon in California and who worked at an Amazon.com 

Covered Facility from May 1, 2013, until the date that the preliminary 

approval of the proposed settlement is ordered.

(Doc. 227 at 23, Ex. 1.) 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 13
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

Informal Discovery Dispute

A. Amazon’s Position

Amazon maintains that any discovery is premature while they await a ruling from Judge 

Sherriff on class certification. Nonetheless, Amazon has offered to (1) partially refresh its prior 

production of pay, time and lenel (“badge swipe”) data, (2) produce additional wage statements, 

and (3) produce additional data related to Plaintiffs’ meal period waiver claim. The parties 

reportedly have agreed on the appropriate cut-off date for Amazon’s data productions, so long as 

Amazon provides declarations confirming various dates related to the conduct at issue, which 

Amazon has agreed to do.2 The parties also reportedly have agreed that Amazon need only 

produce wage statements “that it can reasonably locate dated between July 12, 2016 and 

December 31, 2018 that do not include a specific line item for total hours worked.” (Doc. 226 at 

1.)

Amazon indicates that for two of the disputed issues—the scope of Amazon’s 

supplemental production of pay, time, and badge swipe data, as well as data related to Plaintiffs’ 

second meal period waiver claim—Amazon has proposed production of the following:

• Updated pay, time, and badge swipe data for Plaintiffs’ worksites through 

September 30, 2020, the last day that any of the allegedly unlawful 

practices were still in place.

• Employee IDs, separation dates, and time and pay data for employees who 

were onboarded before November 12, 2018 (the date that Amazon updated 

its electronic meal period waiver) and who signed a second meal period 

waiver.

(Doc. 226 at 2.) Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs have refused this compromise, and instead 

demand production of statewide pay, time, and badge swipe data as well as personally 

identifiable information of individuals who allegedly signed an invalid waiver. (Id.) Amazon 

2 According to the exhibits attached to Amazon’s informal statement, Amazon has agreed to provide 

declarations confirming the following: 

(1) Amazon ceased conducting security screening in California on April 1, 2020, and ceased its 

rounding practice on September 30, 2020, (Doc. 226, Ex. A at 3); and

(2) Amazon revised its electronic meal period waiver on November 12, 2018, (Doc. 226, Ex. A at 4).

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 13
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

identifies the remaining disputes as involving Plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions, 

including a second 30(b)(6) deposition, and any documents in support of Amazon’s defenses (as 

well as identification of those documents). (Id.) 

1. Pay, Time, and Badge Swipe Data

Amazon has offered to provide updated, pay, time, and badge swipe data through 

September 30, 2020 for each of the California sites where Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs reportedly 

have not objected to the September 30, 2020 cutoff date, which is the latest date by which all of 

the challenged practices that implicate this data (security screening,3rounding, and second meal 

period waiver) ceased. However, Plaintiffs have insisted that Amazon provide this data for all 

California employees, invoking their PAGA claims. 

Amazon contends that statewide discovery on the PAGA claims is not appropriate at this 

time and that the Court should order that Amazon need only provide the additional data for the 

five sites where Plaintiffs worked. Amazon believes that tailoring of discovery, at this point in 

time, to the sites where Plaintiffs worked is reasonable given that Plaintiffs will have to establish 

that they were injured, noting the Court’s findings related to the security screening claims.

2. Second Meal Period Waiver Data

Amazon has produced, or offered to produce, nearly all of the discovery Plaintiffs need to 

pursue their second meal period waiver and derivative claims. To that end, Amazon has produced 

copies of all versions of the “second meal period waivers” that were in use prior to certification, 

including the version Plaintiffs asserted was invalid. Amazon does not believe it needs to 

produce any further second meal period waivers because the allegedly deficient meal break 

waiver language was no longer used beginning November 12, 2018.

Amazon also has offered to produce the employee IDs, separation dates, and any 

outstanding time and pay data for associates who were onboarded before November 12, 2018, and 

signed a second meal period waiver. Plaintiffs reportedly have generally accepted this proposal, 

but also insist that they need “the identity of employees who signed a purportedly ‘invalid’ 

3 Amazon indicates that security screening remains in place at Amazon Air facilities in California, but 

none of the Plaintiffs worked at any of those locations.

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 13
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

waiver” so they can “track such identities.” (Doc. 226 at 4.) Amazon believes this request is 

premature and should be rejected. Specifically, Amazon indicates that the scope of precertification discovery lies within the discretion of the district court and that courts in this district 

have used that discretion to restrict the disclosure of full class lists prior to there being a fully 

certified class. (Id.) 

Amazon notes that no second meal period waiver class has been certified, and while 

Amazon expects it will be, until counsel has been appointed class counsel Amazon asserts that it

would be inappropriate to turn over a class list. Amazon also already provided Plaintiffs with a 

sampling of class contact information, which Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs can use to begin 

identifying class members while the parties await Judge Sherriff’s ruling. While Amazon 

acknowledges that Plaintiffs may ultimately be entitled to additional information, Amazon claims 

it would be inappropriate and premature to provide that information now given the procedural 

posture of this case and the fact that Plaintiffs have already had the opportunity to investigate the 

merits of their claims during class certification. Amazon contends that once Judge Sherriff rules 

on class certification, then the parties can revisit this issue as appropriate.

3. Depositions

Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs have broadly insisted on depositions of witnesses, including 

Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, who have knowledge relative to the claims and defenses to any of the 

certified claims or the PAGA claims. (Doc. 226 at 4.) Amazon argues that the Court should 

reject Plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions at this stage. 

As to 30(b)(6) witnesses, Amazon indicates that Plaintiffs have already conducted a Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition in which they deposed two separate corporate witnesses. Amazon asserts that 

Plaintiffs have presented no basis to this Court for yet another Rule 30(b)(6) deposition despite 

Plaintiffs’ claim that discovery previously was limited to class certification issues.

As to 30(b)(1) witnesses, Amazon asserts that Plaintiffs also have presented no basis for 

seeking additional depositions. Amazon points out that Plaintiffs have not identified a single 

person they would like to depose or the basis for any deposition.

Amazon is willing to discuss the need for further depositions in the future, but contends, 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 13
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

among other things, that it makes no sense to require any witness to sit for a deposition before the 

parties have certainty about which claims will proceed on a class or representative basis. 

4. Documents Supporting Amazon’s Defenses

According to Amazon, Plaintiffs have demanded Amazon provide and identify “[a]ny” 

documents supporting Amazon’s defenses. (Doc. 226 at 5, citing Ex. A at 11.) Amazon contends 

that it has already disclosed documents that support its defenses, including by identifying

potentially relevant documents in its initial disclosures and, for example, by producing documents 

in response to Plaintiff Trevino’s first set of requests for production, which requested “all 

documents that support any denial asserted in [Amazon’s] answer to the operative complaint.” 

(Doc. 226 at 5.) Amazon indicates that it will make supplemental productions as it locates more 

documents. 

Per Amazon, Plaintiffs also insist that Amazon identify the specific documents that 

Amazon previously produced that “support Amazon’s defenses.” (Doc. 226 at 5, citing Ex. A at 

6.) Amazon argues that this exceeds what is required by the Federal Rules, which permit a party 

to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business” and does not require 

correlating individual documents to specific requests or defenses, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(b)(2)(E)(i).

B. Plaintiffs’ Position 

Based on Amazon’s statements, Plaintiffs seek a declaration from Amazon (1) affirming 

that it discontinued its rounding practice on September 30, 2020, as has been represented; and (2) 

affirming that Amazon ceased all security screening in California at the start of the pandemic, as 

of April 1, 2020, and still does not conduct screening at its sites in California. (Doc. 228 at 1.)

1. Pay and Time Data

Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to pay and time data for all sites in California, not 

just sites where each plaintiff worked, invoking their PAGA claims. Plaintiffs assert that they 

have standing to pursue PAGA claims with respect to violations committed against all aggrieved 

employees, not only employees at sites at which Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs further assert that 

they are not required to establish that they were injured prior to engaging in discovery, citing 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 7 of 13
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

Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531, 51-52 (2017). 

2. Wage Statement Data

With respect to wage statement data, Plaintiffs argue that Amazon has a payroll database 

with all the fields of information used in the generation of the wage statements, including 

employee IDs, and the data can be exported to an excel spreadsheet. Plaintiffs claim they need 

such information to determine which wage statements had no total for hours worked. Plaintiffs 

have not agreed to limit their request to hard-copy wage statements, and they reportedly know 

that Amazon has electronic wage statement data that should be produced.

Plaintiffs agree to the ending date limitation of January 1, 2019, but seek a declaration 

from Amazon that states a total hours worked entry was on the wage statements as of January 1, 

2019, and thereafter for all of Amazons’ employees.

3. Meal Period Waiver

Plaintiffs aver that they require a declaration affirming that “the allegedly deficient 

electronic second meal period waiver was updated on November 12, 2018.” (Doc. 228 at 4.) 

Plaintiffs also aver that they need the employee IDs, separation dates, time and pay data for 

associates who onboarded before November 12, 2018 who signed the defective meal period 

waiver at issue so they can track such identities. Plaintiffs believe that Amazon’s offer to provide 

IDs of the employees who were onboarded before November 12, 2018 and signed a second meal 

period waiver is too broad an agreement unless Amazon is willing to stipulate “that all second 

meal period waivers that were signed before November 12, 2018 signed the same allegedly 

deficient meal period waiver.”4 (Doc. 228 at 4.) 

4. Documents and Facts Related to Defendants’ Defenses

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to facts, witnesses, and documents upon which 

Amazon is basing any defenses to the certified claims and PAGA claims. Plaintiffs indicate that 

if Amazon has provided such facts, identity of witnesses, and documents, then they can respond

to an interrogatory and Demand for Production “with a verified response verifying such fact.”

4 While not entirely clear, this appears to be a statement that Plaintiffs seek a stipulation that all second 

meal period waivers signed before November 12, 2018 were deficient. 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 8 of 13
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

(Doc. 228 at 4.)

Plaintiffs additionally assert that they are entitled to PMQ testimony as to any such 

defenses. Plaintiffs contend that the discovery cutoff in this action reflected that only certification 

discovery was allowed and PMQs were not questioned about defenses or PAGA claims. 

Plaintiffs agree not to ask the same questions that they already asked. 

C. Discussion and Analysis

1. Requested Declarations

Plaintiffs seek various declarations from Amazon affirming dates that Amazon

discontinued certain practices. To the extent Amazon has agreed to provide declarations 

confirming various cutoff dates related to the conduct at issue as stated in its informal discovery 

dispute letter, Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 

Amazon shall provide relevant declarations that it has agreed to provide, and which confirm 

various cutoff dates related to the conduct at issue. These include the following: (1) Amazon 

ceased conducting security screening in California on April 1, 2020, and ceased its rounding 

practice on September 30, 2020; and (2) Amazon revised its electronic meal period waiver on 

November 12, 2018. The Court does not compel any such declaration for which Amazon has not 

agreed.

2. Pay, Time, and Badge Swipe Data

Amazon has offered to provide updated, pay, time, and badge swipe data through 

September 30, 2020 for each of the California sites where Plaintiffs worked. In contrast, 

Plaintiffs seek pay and time data for all sites in California, not just sites where each plaintiff 

worked, invoking their standing to pursue PAGA claims with respect to violations committed 

against all aggrieved employees. 

Plaintiffs are entitled to statewide pre-certification discovery because they have shown it 

is warranted and because this is a representative PAGA action. See Harper v. Charter Commc'ns, 

LLC, No. 2:19-CV-0902-WBS-DMC, 2020 WL 6158239, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020). The 

Court, however, retains the discretion to limit such discovery, which it will do in this case. Id. 

(exercising discretion to limit pre-certification statewide discovery to 10% random samplings and 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 9 of 13
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

complete contact list); Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., No. 2:16-CV00158 WBS AC, 2018 WL 402235, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018) (“Even in the context of

bifurcated discovery, the scope of pre-certification discovery lies entirely within the discretion of 

the court.”). The pre-certification posture of this action wherein no claims have been certified

(based on the pending findings and recommendations) and the absence of a schedule for merits 

discovery warrant a limit on pre-certification discovery. The updated pay, time, and badge swipe 

data offered by Amazon is reasonable and proportional to the current needs of this action under 

Rule 26. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for pay and time data for all sites in California is 

DENIED without prejudice. However, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Amazon 

shall provide updated pay, time, and badge swipe data for Plaintiffs’ worksites through September 

30, 2020. As necessary and appropriate, Plaintiffs may renew their request for pay and time data 

for all sites in California once the claims in this action have been clarified and a schedule for 

merits discovery has been established.

3. Second Meal Period Waiver Data

Plaintiffs assert that the need the employee IDs, separation dates, time and pay data for 

associates who were onboarded before November 12, 2018, who signed the meal period waiver at 

issue. Although Amazon has offered to provide this information for employees who signed a 

second meal period waiver, Plaintiffs appear to believe that such an offer is too broad. Plaintiffs’ 

objection seems to be that Amazon has offered to produce more data than may be required. It is 

not evident to the Court that additional discovery, beyond that offered by Amazon, is necessary. 

To the extent Plaintiffs are requesting less discovery, they are in the best position to narrow their 

own discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request related to second meal period waiver 

data is DENIED at this time. 

Insofar as Plaintiffs are seeking the identity of employees who signed the meal period 

waiver at issue, Amazon has reportedly provided Plaintiffs with a sampling of class contact 

information, which Plaintiffs can use to identify class members while the parties await a ruling on 

class certification. Plaintiffs may renew their request as appropriate following any ruling on 

certification. 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 10 of 13
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

4. Wage Statement Data

With respect to wage statement data, Plaintiffs argue that Amazon has electronic wage 

statement data that should be produced in an excel spreadsheet, so that Plaintiffs may determine 

which wage statements had “no total for hours worked.” (Doc. 228 at 3.) Plaintiffs have 

explained that Amazon has a payroll database with all the fields of information used in the 

generation of wage statements, Amazon can export that data into an excel spreadsheet, and 

Plaintiffs can then determine which wages statements “had fields of data that included the number 

of hours to determine if there were wage statements that had hours worked listed that double 

counted other hours and made the total hours worked inaccurate when adding up the separate line 

items of hours (where there was no total for hours worked.)” (Id.) It is not evident to the Court 

that electronic wage statement data in an excel file will provide the necessary information 

relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim that certain wage statements failed to list total hours worked. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). While an excel spreadsheet might indicate the fields of information used to 

generate wage statements, the claim relates to whether the wage statement contains a line item for 

total hours worked. Thus, it is the wage statements that are relevant. Amazon has agreed to 

produce wage statements “that it can reasonably locate dated between July 12, 2016 and 

December 31, 2018 that do not include a specific line item for total hours worked.” (Doc. 226 at 

1.) For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for production of wage statement data in an excel 

spreadsheet is DENIED without prejudice. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 

Amazon shall produce wage statements that it can reasonably locate dated between July 12, 2016 

and December 31, 2018 that do not include a specific line item for total hours worked. If, after 

Amazon’s agreed-upon production, Plaintiffs believe that there are additional wage statements 

that have not been produced, then they may renew their request. 

5. Documents and Fact Related to Amazon’s Defenses

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to facts, witnesses, and documents upon which 

Amazon is basing any defenses to the certified claims and PAGA claims. However, Amazon 

contends that it has already disclosed documents that support its defenses, including by 

identifying potentially relevant documents in its initial disclosures and, for example, by producing 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 11 of 13
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

12

documents in response to Plaintiff Trevino’s first set of requests for production, which requested 

“all documents that support any denial asserted in [Amazon’s] answer to the operative 

complaint.” (Doc. 226 at 5.) Amazon also has agreed to supplement its responses as is required 

by Rule 26(e). Based on amazon’s representation that is has disclosed or produced responsive 

documents, Plaintiffs’ broad-based request for any documents upon which Amazon is basing its 

defenses is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs additionally request that Amazon identify the specific documents it previously 

produced that support its defenses. However, the federal civil rules require a party to either 

produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business” or “label them to 

correspond to the categories in the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). Absent any indication 

that Amazon failed to produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business, 

Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED. 

Plaintiffs additionally assert that they are entitled to PMQ testimony as to any such 

defenses. At this juncture, the Court finds that any additional depositions—whether 30(b)(6) or 

otherwise—would be premature. Requiring individuals to sit for depositions prior to certainty 

about which claims will proceed on a class or representative basis would be inefficient and 

impractical. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for further PMQ depositions is DENIED without 

prejudice. As appropriate and necessary, Plaintiffs may renew their request for additional PMQ 

depositions once the district court has ruled on the pending findings and recommendations. 

D. Conclusion and Order

As detailed above, Plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part. (Doc. 228.) 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 12 of 13
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

13

Given the procedural posture of this action, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amazon 

shall file a status report no later than December 20, 2024, providing an update on the final 

approval hearing and status of the Kentucky action: In re: Amazon.com, Inc. Fulfillment Center 

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL Case No. 3:14-md-2504 

(W.D. Ky.). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 229 Filed 12/02/24 Page 13 of 13