Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05338/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05338-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

C-05-5338 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYMUNDO PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC, et al., 

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-5338 PJH (JL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION

TO COMPEL (Docket # 103)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Phyllis J.

Hamilton) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §626(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The parties met and

conferred by letter and telephone, as required by with this Court’s Standing Order, Civil

Local Rule 37 and Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to order defendant Safety-Kleen to answer interrogatories,

produce documents, and produce witnesses for FRCP 30(b)(6) depositions. Plaintiffs

believe that this dispute can be resolved on the basis of the parties’ joint statement. SafetyKleen believes resolution requires the Court’s reviewing the precise discovery requests, the

precise objections, and (in some cases) deposition testimony, as well as hearing argument

on specific discovery requests, as distinguished from general argument.

Case 4:05-cv-05338-PJH Document 105 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 5
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

C-05-5338 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 5

The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision on the papers submitted, without

oral argument, as provided by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

Background

This is a wage and hours case. Plaintiffs plan to file a motion for certification of a

class of approximately 200 Customer Service Representatives (“CSRs”) for Safety-Kleen, a

national provider of parts washers, environmental services, and industrial waste

management. Plaintiffs allege violations of California Labor Code, including failure to

provide rest and meal breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements,

November 19, 2007, Plaintiffs propounded requests for production of documents and

interrogatories, and noticed the depositions of Safety-Kleen’s person most knowledgeable

on a number fo subjects pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6). Defendant responded with a number

of objections. The district court has extended the deadline for filing discovery motions to

January 17, 2008, and ordered that within one week of this Court’s order on this dispute,

the parties must file a joint stipulation with proposed filing and briefing dates for both class

certification and dispositive motions.

The Disputed Discovery 

Requests for Production of Documents

Requests No. 13-14 - Plaintiffs seek to compel copies of company records reflecting

usage of company cell phones by Plaintiffs and potential class members. The parties

disagree as to whether carrying a cell phone renders an employee “on duty” or “on call”

during his meal period. Safety-Kleen contends the cell phone records are irrelevant (1)

because the records cannot show whether a call occurred during a CSRs’s meal period,

since CSRs were able to take meals when and if they chose, and there are no set meal

periods, and (2) because being “on call” for telephone calls does not cause an employee

otherwise “off duty” to be “on duty.”

Safety-Kleen is relying on its own interpretation of when an employee is “on duty” or

“on call” to limit Plaintiffs’ discovery. Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of any non-privileged

information which may lead to admissible evidence. The cell phone records are a starting

Case 4:05-cv-05338-PJH Document 105 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 5
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

C-05-5338 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 5

point. Plaintiffs may be able to establish whether calls took place during meal breaks by

other means. Safety-Kleen shall respond to these requests.

Request No. 15 - Plaintiffs seek production of documents reflecting CSRs’

responsibility for their vehicles while away from the branch. Safety-Kleen responded that

the only document that might say something on the subject is its “Transportation Security

Plan,” issued pursuant to the regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the

Department of Homeland Security. Safety-Kleen objects that the agencies’ regulations

prohibit disclosure of the Plan. Safety-Kleen offers to prepare a proposed protective order

but objects to production even with a protective order.

This information is relevant to CSRs’ working status when away from the branch and

is, by Safety-Kleen’s admission, not available in any other form. Safety-Kleen and Plaintiffs

shall prepare a joint proposed protective order and submit it to the Court for approval within

five days of the filing of this order, and Safety-Kleen shall produce the document forthwith

upon the Court’s approval of the protective order.

Interrogatories No. 3-6 - Plaintiffs seek to compel responses to a series of

interrogatories regarding “duty-free meal periods.” Safety-Kleen responded that CSRs did

take duty-free meal periods but then went on to argue that it does not “contend” that they

did. Safety-Kleen also objects that these requests call for its attorneys’ mental thought

processes in violation of the work product doctrine. Safety-Kleen offers Plaintiffs’ deposition

testimony in response.

Safety-Kleen shall provide a narrative response according to the plain language of

the interrogatories, stating specific facts within the knowledge of Safety-Kleen.

Interrogatories No. 11-13 - Plaintiffs seek information regarding what Safety-Kleen

did to provide meal periods to Perez, Doane, and California CSRs. Safety-Kleen responded

by reciting from Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony.

Safety-Kleen shall provide a narrative response providing specific facts within the

knowledge of Safety-Kleen.

Case 4:05-cv-05338-PJH Document 105 Filed 01/31/08 Page 3 of 5
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

C-05-5338 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 5

Interrogatories No. 18-21 - Plaintiffs seek to compel answers to interrogatories

regarding Safety-Kleen’s contentions whether CSRs were relieved of all duties during their

daily meal periods, and asks Safety-Kleen to state all facts, and identify all documents and

witnesses supporting its contentions. Safety-Kleen objects that its response would call for

attorney work-product.

Safety-Kleen shall respond with all facts, witnesses and documents that support its

contentions. Safety-Kleen shall within five days of the filing of this order provide a privilege

log to the Court and to Plaintiff for any discovery withheld on the basis of privilege.

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions - Plaintiffs noticed depositions of Safety-Kleen’s persons

most knowledgeable on 13 subjects. Safety-Kleen objected, but agreed to produce an

individual knowledgeable on two of the subjects, concerning practices at each of SafetyKleens’s thirteen California branches. Safety-Kleen represents that there is no one

knowledgeable about the practices in question at each of the thirteen branches, but that

Safety-Kleen will assign the designated persons to telephone the branches and ascertain

the facts related to the two identified subjects.

Safety-Kleen contends that many of the subjects were already covered at Rule

30(b)(6) depositions noticed and taken in this case and in two related cases: Wamboldt v.

Safety-Kleen and Stegall v. Safety-Kleen. Those depositions were conducted in Plano,

Texas, where Safety-Kleen’s corporate headquarters is located.

Safety-Kleen objects to several of Plaintiffs’ subjects on the grounds that (a) they

were neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible

evidence, or (b) as written, they assumed facts not in evidence. The former includes (i)

CSRs’ responsibilities to carry and use company cell phones (related to a dispute over

document requests) and (ii) policies and procedures to ensure CSRs were relieved of all

duty when they took meal periods (also related to a document request). The latter include

(i) policies and procedures concerning “on duty” meal periods and use of on-duty meal

period agreements, and (ii) efforts to record meal periods. Safety-Kleen also objects to the

location of the depositions, at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office in Santa Rosa, California, when the

Case 4:05-cv-05338-PJH Document 105 Filed 01/31/08 Page 4 of 5
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

C-05-5338 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 5 of 5

persons most knowledgeable live and work in or about Plano, Texas, where Safety-Kleen

maintains its headquarters.

These subjects are relevant to CSRs’ status during meal periods as discussed with

respect to the document requests and interrogatories. However, it is reasonable for the

depositions of Safety-Kleen’s employees to be taken with the least disruption of their work

and personal lives. Accordingly, these depositions shall go forward in Plano, Texas.

All discovery shall be produced within five days of the filing of this order, except as

discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2008

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\05-5338\ORD-GIP-103.wpd

Case 4:05-cv-05338-PJH Document 105 Filed 01/31/08 Page 5 of 5