Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08125/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08125-1/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

27

28

1

 We now note that defendant did file a late response, stating that the parties’ lawyers

“specifically agreed to Defendant’s filing of this Opposition at this time.” Response to

Motion to Compel at 2, n.2 (doc. 64). However, the parties never requested an extension of

time from the court, and thus the response came too late for consideration. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael L. Taylor, on behalf of himself

and other persons similarly situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Autozone, Inc. et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8125-PCT-FJM

ORDER

We have before us: (1) plaintiffs’ motion to compel (doc. 58), defendant’s response

(doc. 74), and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 77); and (2) defendant’s motion to reconsider (doc. 71)

our Order of May 12, 2011 (doc. 61) granting plaintiffs’ first motion to compel (doc. 49). 

I

On April 21, 2011, plaintiffs moved to compel the production of all defendant’s

“plano-grams,” as well as all floor plans or floor display layouts of all stores at which the

four named plaintiffs worked in the three years prior to July 16, 2010 (doc. 49). Because

defendant did not timely respond,1

 we granted plaintiffs’ motion. See Order of May 12, 2011

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 84 Filed 06/10/11 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 -

(doc. 61). However, due to administrative error, our order included the language from

plaintiffs’ proposed order for their second motion to compel (doc. 58), rather than plaintiffs’

first motion to compel (doc. 49). We therefore amend our Order of May 12, 2011 (doc. 61)

to delete the erroneous language and substitute the correct language. 

II

Defendant moves for reconsideration of our Order of May 12, 2011, because the time

to respond to plaintiffs’ second motion to compel (doc. 58), had not yet expired. As we have

amended our order so as not to erroneously grant plaintiffs’ second motion, but instead grant

plaintiffs’ first motion to compel, defendant’s motion to reconsider is moot (doc. 71). 

III

Plaintiffs move for an order requiring defendant to produce all documents relating to

its policies, practices and procedures for setting retail store staffing levels from July 16, 2007

to the present (excluding any proprietary scheduling software), including those related to the

number of hours and/or number and type of employee positions budgeted for each location

(doc. 58).

Plaintiffs argue that these documents are relevant to their allegations that defendant’s

stores are intentionally understaffed, requiring store managers to perform non-managerial

work. We agree that documents about staffing levels are relevant. To be exempt under the

Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee’s “primary duty” must be management. See 29

C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(2). Relevant to that determination is “the amount of time spent

performing exempt work.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a). Defendant’s staffing policies, including

the kinds of positions and the number of hours authorized for each store, may provide

evidence of the day-to-day responsibilities of store managers and show whether their primary

duty is management. Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ request is overly broad because it

encompasses operations beyond store managers’ responsibility. But a request for documents

relating to “determining and setting staff levels” does not reach policy decisions, such as the

store logo design or sales offers. See Motion to Reconsider at 4. We therefore conclude that

plaintiffs’ request is sufficiently tailored. 

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 84 Filed 06/10/11 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 -

Plaintiffs’ request is also not overly burdensome. “[P]re-trial discovery is ordinarily

‘accorded a broad and liberal treatment.’” Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993)

(citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392 (1947)). We may limit the

extent of proposed discovery if its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). Given the number of possible plaintiffs in the conditionally certified

class, defendant’s resources, and the importance of defendant’s staffing policies to plaintiffs’

claim about their exempt status, we conclude that the expense of complying with plaintiffs’

request does not outweigh its benefit. 

Defendant also argues that the parties are working to develop search terms to identify

the documents that are the subject of plaintiffs’ motion, and that the searches will clarify the

scope of the burden imposed by plaintiffs’ request. Defendant believes these queries will

demonstrate that plaintiffs’ request is overly broad. But plaintiffs made their first request for

staffing-related documents on November 12, 2010, and narrowed the dates of the requested

documents on January 20, 2011. See Gould Declaration, ¶¶ 2, 6 (doc. 59). Defendant does

not explain why the search-term development process is still ongoing, and we see no reason

for further delay. 

Defendant asks for protection of any confidential information that defendant produces.

The parties have entered into two stipulations on discovery protocol (docs. 72 & 73), which

include protection for confidential documents. 

Because plaintiffs’ requested documents are relevant and their production not overly

burdensome, we grant plaintiffs’ motion to compel. 

IV

IT IS ORDERED amending our Order of May 12, 2011 (doc. 61), by striking the

second paragraph, and substituting the following: “IT IS ORDERED that defendants

produce all AutoZone plan-ograms, as well as all AutoZone floor plans or floor display

layouts, controlling or showing the layout or appearance of the retail stores at which

plaintiffs Glover-Hale, Khan, Montoya and Taylor worked in the three years prior to July 16,

2010.”

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 84 Filed 06/10/11 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 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING as moot defendant’s motion for reconsideration (doc.

71). 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs’ motion to compel (doc. 58). IT IS

ORDERED that defendants produce all documents relating to defendants’ policies, practices

and procedures for determining and setting staffing levels at the retail store level (excluding

any proprietary scheduling software), from July 16, 2007 to May 24, 2011 (the terminal date

to be explained in a subsequent order). Such policies, practices and procedures include, but

are not limited to, those which govern or relate to the number and type of authorized hours

and/or number and type of employee positions budgeted for each retail location.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 84 Filed 06/10/11 Page 4 of 4