Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04723/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04723-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

 These letters are found at docket nos. 48, 49, 50 and 51 in 04-4699 SI, and 50, 51, 52 and 52 in

04-4723 SI.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MORENO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

S.J. WEAVER CONTRACTING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04699 SI

No. C 04-04723 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND

MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS

This order addresses a discovery dispute that has arisen with regard to defendant Steven Weaver’s

production of documents. The Court has reviewed defendant’s letter briefs dated October 3, 2005 and

October 7, 2005, and plaintiffs’ letter briefs dated October 5, 2005 and October 10, 2005.1

The Court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to some, but not all, ofthe discovery at issue. Plaintiffs

seek documents from defendant Weaver on the theory that Weaver and the now-bankrupt defendant S.J.

Weaver Contracting, Inc., operated as a “single employer.” Assuming that defendant Weaver can be held

liable under such a theory (a question that is not currently before the Court), plaintiffs would need to show that

Weaver and the company shared common ownership, common management, an interrelation of operations,

and centralized controloflaborrelations. See UA Local 343 v. NorCal Plumbing, Inc., 38 F.3d 1467, 1473

(9th Cir. 1994). Thus, discovery directed at the degree to which the finances ofWeaver and the company are

interrelated is relevant. 

Defendant contends that the discovery at issue is burdensome and irrelevant because it seeks

documents dating back to January 1, 2000, and that discovery should be limited to January 1, 2004 and after

because the contract at issue was signed in December of2003. Although the Court agrees that discovery prior

to January 1, 2004 is relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, the Court is also mindful ofthe burden placed on defendant

Case 3:04-cv-04723-SI Document 55 Filed 10/26/05 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

in responding to plaintiffs’ discovery. Accordingly, the Court limits discovery to no earlier than January 1,

2002. Defendant is directed to supplement his previous responses with this time period in mind by November

18, 2005. (The Court notes that defendant’s October 7, 2005 letter states that he has not refused to produce

documents for any of the specific categories listed on page 4 of plaintiffs’ October 5, 2005 letter, but rather

there were no responsive documents from 2004 or 2005 for those categories.) 

Defendant also seeks a protective order to protect private and confidential information about the

company’s third party employees. Defendant states that some of the discovery at issue, such as payroll

records, contains private information about these individuals. The Court notes that there is a protective order

already in place in this case. Defendant contends that this protective order is limited to the production of

documents that occurred on September 26, 2005, and that it will not protect the privacy rights of third parties.

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding a new protective order (or a modificationofthe current

protective order) thatwill protect the privacy rights ofthird parties. The parties shall file a proposed protective

order to the Court by November 4, 2005.

Both plaintiffs and defendant describe ongoing discovery involving third parties Comerica Bank and

its law firm, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP; plaintiffs suggest the discovery produced has been

deficient, while defendant contends that production thus far has been adequate and that plaintiffs’ discovery of

third parties has been burdensome. However, neither party has filed a request for relief regarding the third

party discovery, and thus this order does not address any such issues.

Finally, plaintiffs request modification of the scheduling order in this case to allow for an extension of

time to file motion papers, which are currently due November 4, 2005 with a hearing reserved for December

9, 2005. The Court hereby modifies the schedule such that any motions shall now be heard on January 6,

2005, with papers to be filed according schedule set forth in the Civil Local Rules. If the parties require an

extension beyond that date, they may request a telephone conference with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Dated: October ___, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04723-SI Document 55 Filed 10/26/05 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

1

 These letters are found at docket nos. 48, 49, 50 and 51 in 04-4699 SI, and 50, 51, 52 and 52 in

04-4723 SI.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MORENO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

S.J. WEAVER CONTRACTING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04699 SI

No. C 04-04723 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY AND

MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS

This order addresses a discovery dispute that has arisen with regard to defendant Steven Weaver’s

production of documents. The Court has reviewed defendant’s letter briefs dated October 3, 2005 and

October 7, 2005, and plaintiffs’ letter briefs dated October 5, 2005 and October 10, 2005.1

The Court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to some, but not all, ofthe discovery at issue. Plaintiffs

seek documents from defendant Weaver on the theory that Weaver and the now-bankrupt defendant S.J.

Weaver Contracting, Inc., operated as a “single employer.” Assuming that defendant Weaver can be held

liable under such a theory (a question that is not currently before the Court), plaintiffs would need to show that

Weaver and the company shared common ownership, common management, an interrelation of operations,

and centralized controloflaborrelations. See UA Local 343 v. NorCal Plumbing, Inc., 38 F.3d 1467, 1473

(9th Cir. 1994). Thus, discovery directed at the degree to which the finances ofWeaver and the company are

interrelated is relevant. 

Defendant contends that the discovery at issue is burdensome and irrelevant because it seeks

documents dating back to January 1, 2000, and that discovery should be limited to January 1, 2004 and after

because the contract at issue was signed in December of2003. Although the Court agrees that discovery prior

to January 1, 2004 is relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, the Court is also mindful ofthe burden placed on defendant

Case 3:04-cv-04723-SI Document 55 Filed 10/26/05 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

2

in responding to plaintiffs’ discovery. Accordingly, the Court limits discovery to no earlier than January 1,

2002. Defendant is directed to supplement his previous responses with this time period in mind by November

18, 2005. (The Court notes that defendant’s October 7, 2005 letter states that he has not refused to produce

documents for any of the specific categories listed on page 4 of plaintiffs’ October 5, 2005 letter, but rather

there were no responsive documents from 2004 or 2005 for those categories.) 

Defendant also seeks a protective order to protect private and confidential information about the

company’s third party employees. Defendant states that some of the discovery at issue, such as payroll

records, contains private information about these individuals. The Court notes that there is a protective order

already in place in this case. Defendant contends that this protective order is limited to the production of

documents that occurred on September 26, 2005, and that it will not protect the privacy rights of third parties.

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding a new protective order (or a modificationofthe current

protective order) thatwill protect the privacy rights ofthird parties. The parties shall file a proposed protective

order to the Court by November 4, 2005.

Both plaintiffs and defendant describe ongoing discovery involving third parties Comerica Bank and

its law firm, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP; plaintiffs suggest the discovery produced has been

deficient, while defendant contends that production thus far has been adequate and that plaintiffs’ discovery of

third parties has been burdensome. However, neither party has filed a request for relief regarding the third

party discovery, and thus this order does not address any such issues.

Finally, plaintiffs request modification of the scheduling order in this case to allow for an extension of

time to file motion papers, which are currently due November 4, 2005 with a hearing reserved for December

9, 2005. The Court hereby modifies the schedule such that any motions shall now be heard on January 6,

2005, with papers to be filed according schedule set forth in the Civil Local Rules. If the parties require an

extension beyond that date, they may request a telephone conference with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Dated: October ___, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04723-SI Document 55 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 4