Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00715/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00715-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABE BEAUPERTHUY, et al. on behalf

of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., a

California corporation d/b/a 24

Hour Fitness; SPORT AND FITNESS

CLUBS OF AMERICA, INC., a

California corporation d/b/a 24

Hour Fitness,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-00715 SC

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Gabe Beauperthuy, et al., ("Plaintiffs") seek

leave of the Court to file a motion compelling Defendants 24 Hour

Fitness USA, Inc. and Sport and Fitness Clubs of America, Inc.

(collectively "Defendants" or "24 Hour Fitness") to produce

additional names and addresses for facilitated notice pursuant to

the Court's Opt-In Order. See Mot. for Leave, Docket No. 156. 

Plaintiffs seek further relief from the Court in the form of an

order requiring (1) that Defendants respond to certain questions

regarding the list of names Defendants provided to the Notice

Administrator; (2) that Defendants identify a person most

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 7
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

knowledgeable regarding compliance with the Order and make that

person available for a previously-noticed deposition regarding

Defendants' efforts to comply with the Opt-In Order; and (3) that

within 14 days following said deposition, the parties submit

briefing regarding whether sanctions are appropriate. See id.

Defendants did not Oppose the Motion for Leave.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court hereby GRANTS IN

PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' motion.

II. BACKGROUND

On May 9, 2007, the Court issued the Opt-In Order, which

allowed the Plaintiffs' claims to proceed as a collective action

under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29

U.S.C. § 216(b). See Opt-In Order, Docket No. 145, at 2. 

Defendants moved the Court to clarify or reconsider the scope of

the Opt-In Order. See Docket No. 148. The Court denied that

motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer to resolve any

remaining dispute regarding the interpretation or application of

the Opt-In Order. See Docket No. 154.

The Opt-In Order required Defendants to produce the names and

addresses of all 24 Hour Fitness employees covered by that Order

to Plaintiffs' counsel and the Notice Administrator, CPT Group. 

See Opt-In Order, at 2. On July 9, 2007, Defendants produced a

list containing the names of approximately 2,300 individuals

covered by the Opt-In Order. See Donahoo Decl., ¶ 2. Despite the

parties' attempts to reach agreement regarding the scope of the

Opt-In Order, Plaintiffs allege that the list of names Defendants

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 7
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 3

produced is deficient in two ways: 1) the list excludes entire

groups of people that Plaintiff argues are part of the class and

should receive the Notice (i.e., Floor Supervisors); and 2) the

list excludes numerous individuals who are within groups that

Defendants admit should receive notice. See Mot., 7-8.

Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Defendants' counsel on

July 11, 2007, containing a series of questions regarding the list

of names Defendants had produced, and requesting a response by

July 16. See Donahoo Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D. Defendants' counsel

answered some of the questions by letter on July 19, 2007, but

objected to and refused to answer others. See Donahoo Decl., ¶ 8,

Ex. E. The parties continued to discuss the list of names, but

were unable to resolve their dispute. 

Plaintiffs brought the instant motion for leave on July 24,

2007, and requested that the Court take immediate action because

the deadline for sending the facilitated notice pursuant to the

Opt-In Order was approaching. On August 8, 2007, without further

action from the Court, the Notice Administrator sent the required

Notice to all of the 24 Hour Fitness employees on the list

Defendants had provided.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendants' list of names

for facilitated notice is incomplete. See Donahoo Decl., ¶¶ 11-

43; Lee Decl., ¶¶ 1-2; Geneser Decl., ¶¶ 1-2; Phillips Decl., ¶¶

1-2. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to bring their

motion to compel the supplemental production of names and

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 3 of 7
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 4

addresses.

Pursuant to the Opt-In Order, if the parties were unable to

resolve any issues related to the list of names through the meet

and confer process, either party could request leave of Court to

file a motion; if the Court granted leave, the time for sending

out the required Notice would be tolled until the dispute was

resolved. See Opt-In Order, ¶ 8. Although Plaintiffs sought

leave in a timely manner, the Court did not act on that request

prior to the deadline for sending the Notice. For the purposes of

any additional individuals Defendants disclose as a result of

relief granted herein, or as a result of Plaintiff's subsequent

motion to compel, the time for filing notice shall be deemed

tolled as of July 27, 2007, the date on which Plaintiffs brought

the instant motion for leave. 

Upon resolution of the motion to compel, Plaintiffs shall

give the list of additional names to the Notice Administrator, and

the Notice Administrator shall send the Notice and "Consent to

Join" form to all of the new people on the list. Those

individuals must return the "Consent to Join" form no later than

sixty (60) days after the date on which the Notice Administrator

mails the Notice. Additionally, the deadline for those

individuals who received the Notice sent August 8, 2007, to return

their "Consent to Join" forms shall be extended to coincide with

the deadline for those now receiving the Notice for the first

time. Within ten (10) days of the close of the extended opt-in

period described above, all "Consent to Join" forms shall be filed

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 4 of 7
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

1If Defendants do not disclose any additional names, the

Notice Administrator will not need to send the Notice again, and

the opt-in period will not be extended.

5

with the Court.1

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require Defendants to answer

a series of questions relating to the list of names, initially

presented in a letter to Defendants' counsel. See Mot., at 6;

Donahoo Decl., Ex. D. When Defendants previously asked the Court

to clarify or reconsider the terms of the Opt-In Order, the Court

ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding any remaining

disputes. See Docket No. 154. Following the Court's order,

Defendants did not engage in any meaningful attempt to resolve

disputes over interpretation of the Opt-In Order; rather, they

objected to Plaintiffs' questions and stuck to their own

interpretation of the Opt-In Order. See e.g., Donahoo Decl., Ex.

E, ¶ 1 ("This request is oppressive and burdensome." "Defendants'

interpretation of the Court's orders is..."). Given that

Plaintiffs have demonstrated Defendants' omission of individuals

who are in groups both parties agree should receive the Notice, as

well as the omission of entire groups of people from the list,

Defendants' refusal to answer Plaintiffs' questions is

unacceptable. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion

requesting an order that requires Defendants to answer the

questions contained in the July 11 letter from Richard Donahoo to

Lisa Chagala (Exhibit D to the Donahoo Declaration).

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order Defendants to identify

and make available for deposition a person most knowledgeable

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

("PMK") about Defendants' efforts to comply with the Opt-In Order. 

From communication between counsel, it appears that Defendants

were previously willing to produce a PMK for deposition if

Plaintiffs still required the deposition after resolving the

disputes over the Opt-In Order. See Donahoo Decl., Ex. C. The

Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' request that the Court order

Defendants to identify a PMK for deposition as premature. 

Defendants have indicated their willingness to cooperate on this

deposition once the list of names is final. If, after resolution

of Plaintiffs' motion to compel, the deposition is necessary and

Defendants refuse to cooperate, Plaintiffs may then move to compel

the deposition.

Finally, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring the parties to

brief whether or not sanctions against Defendants are appropriate. 

As the briefing would depend on the PMK deposition discussed

above, it would be premature to order that briefing now. The

Court therefore DENIES this request. After Defendant complies

with this Order and answers the questions regarding compliance

with the Opt-In Order, and following the resolution of Plaintiffs'

motion to compel, if Plaintiffs depose the PMK and still believe

sanctions are appropriate, they may seek leave to file a motion

for sanctions.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiffs may file a motion to compel supplemental

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 6 of 7
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 7

disclosure of names and addresses for facilitated notice.

2. Plaintiffs shall file their motion to compel no later

than September 7, 2007; Defendants shall file their Opposition no

later than September 21, 2007; Plaintiffs may file a Reply no

later than September 28, 2007; the motion to compel is set for

hearing before the Court on October 12, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

3. Defendants shall provide written answers to Questions 1,

3, 5, 6, and 8 in the July 11, 2007, letter from Richard Donahoo

to Lisa Chagala (Exhibit D to the Donahoo Declaration) no later

than September 5, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2007.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00715-SC Document 174 Filed 08/28/07 Page 7 of 7