Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01552-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Civil Rights Department
Plaintiff
Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.
Defendant
Grimmway Farms
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, an 

agency of the State of California, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., 

d.b.a. GRIMMWAY FARMS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:21-cv-01552 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 This case is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for discovery. ECF No. 57 (duplicate 

filed at ECF No. 56). The parties submitted the required joint statement. ECF No. 71 (duplicate 

filed at ECF No. 70). The matter was taken under submission and heard on the papers. ECF No. 

73. Having considered all of the filings and relevant law, the court GRANTS the motion. 

I. Introduction 

The Civil Rights Department (“CRD”) is a state agency charged with, among other things, 

investigating and prosecuting alleged violations of California’s anti-discrimination laws, 

including the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). CRD alleges that it also has 

authority to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

(“ADA”) in California. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12930 et seq. On August 30, 2021, the CRD filed 

a civil rights complaint on behalf of “itself in the public interest and all aggrieved disabled 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 1 of 8
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 

employees” for alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stemming from Grimmway’s alleged failure to engage in 

the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees. ECF No. 

1. CRD’s Complaint seeks remedies for all aggrieved employees, including farm labor contractor 

employees. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 25; Prayer for Relief ¶ 3. Grimmway’s Answer (“Answer”) asserts fortyfour Affirmative Defenses. ECF No. 4. 

Fact discovery in this case closed on March 18, 2024, but the court extended discovery to 

May 17, 2024 for limited purposes, including the hearing and resolution of this previously noticed 

dispute. ECF Nos. 61, 66. 

II. Motion 

The parties have engaged in meet and confer efforts and have been unable to come to an 

agreement on two remaining discovery disputes: 1) whether Grimmway must further amend its 

response to plaintiff’s RFP No. 5 (Set 1) to include records of disability accommodation requests 

for employees of farm labor contractors; and (2) whether Grimmway must provide CRD with the 

additional employee pay records, as well as the other information requested in RFP No. 82 (Set 

6), for the last three years. ECF No. 71 at 2. 

III. Analysis 

The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(1). The current Rule states: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as 

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation “has 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 2 of 8
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 

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Relevance, however, does not establish discoverability; in 

2015, a proportionality requirement was added to Rule 26. Under the amended Rule 26, 

relevance alone will not justify discovery; discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the 

case. 

A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 

proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 

of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or boilerplate objections, 

without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an objection or 

privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. V. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 

1142, 1149 (9th Cir.2005). 

A. Farm Contractor Discovery 

The heart of the issue with respect to the first discovery dispute is whether documents 

related to farm labor contractors are relevant and proportional for the purposes of discovery. The 

request for production and response at issue read as follows: 

CRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET 1, NO. 5 

All DOCUMENTSconcerning DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION 

requests submitted between [January 1, 2017], and the present. 

(DOCUMENT or DOCUMENTS are used in the broadest possible 

sense and are defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in 

scope to the usage of these terms in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A) and 

California Evidence Code section 250 and specifically includes but 

is not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, records, electronically 

storied information, data, data sheets, databases, folders, reports, 

evaluations, work papers, summaries, opinions, journals, calendars, 

diaries, statistical records, checks, notes, transcriptions, telegrams, 

teletypes, telex messages, telefaxes, recordings of telephone calls, 

conferences, minutes and notes of transcriptions of all meetings and 

other communications of any type, microfiche, microfilms, 

dictobelts, tapes or other records, logs and any other information that 

is stored or carried electronically, by means of computer equipment 

or otherwise, and that can be retrieved in printed, graphic, or audio 

form, including, but not limited to, information stored in the memory 

of a computer, data stored on removable magnetic or optical media 

(for example, magnetic tape, floppy disks, removable cartridge disks, 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 3 of 8
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 

and optical disks), electronic media, including email, electronic mail, 

databases, and computer files, computer data, and/or computer 

printouts. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate DOCUMENT 

within the meaning of this term; the terms “DOCUMENTS” also 

includes copies containing any information in addition to or in any 

way different from that contained in or on the original and ALL 

attachments, enclosures, or DOCUMENTS affixed or referred to in 

any DOCUMENTS identified in response to any of the following 

requests for production. 

DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION means any modification or 

adjustment, temporary or permanent, to a job or the work 

environment that enables an EMPLOYEE with a disability to 

perform their essential job functions or causes the EMPLOYEE with 

a disability to be reassigned, temporarily or permanently, to another 

position. EMPLOYEE(S) includes any and all PERSONS who 

received wages or a salary for work or services performed for YOU, 

during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD in California. RELEVANT 

TIME PERIOD means the time period from January 1, 2011, through 

the date of YOUR final production and response to these requests, 

except as otherwise indicated.) 

GRIMMWAY AMENDED RESPONSE TO RFP, SET 1, NO. 5: 

Objection. This request fails to describe with reasonable particularity 

each item or category of items to be inspected as required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(1). This request is vague, ambiguous, 

overbroad and unduly burdensome, particularly with respect to scope 

and time period. This request is also vague, ambiguous, and 

overbroad with respect to the term “DISABILITY 

ACCOMMODATION requests,” rendering a response unduly 

burdensome. This request calls for production of documents outside 

the scope of discovery permitted under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b); this request is neither relevant to the claim or 

defense of any party, admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence, nor proportional to the needs 

of this action. Additionally, the DFEH has already received from 

Responding Party all or some of the documents identified in this 

request. Therefore, it would be unduly burdensome, expensive, and 

oppressive to require Responding Party to produce these documents 

which are already in DFEH’s possession and fully accessible to 

DFEH. All or some of the documents identified in this request may 

be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, and less expensive, privacy rights of third parties who 

have not received notice of the requests and who have not had the 

opportunity to object to the disclosure of their personal information. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Grimmway 

responds as follows: Subject to the Protective Order in this action, 

Grimmway previously produced documents in its possession, 

custody or control that are responsive to this request, including those 

documents with Bates Nos. GEI00001410-GEI00096677, 

GEI00096837-GEI00097111, GEI00099734-GEI00099739, 

GEI00100821-GEI00100849, and GEI00100874-GEI00104176. 

Additionally, in accordance with the agreement between Grimmway 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 4 of 8
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 

and DFEH, following their meet and confer efforts, Grimmway will, 

subject to the Protective Order in this action, produce or permit the 

inspection of all (1) the medical leave of absence files of the 

individuals whose IP files were reproduced on April 18, 2019 to the 

extent that such files have not already been produced; (2) the IP files 

between February 2019 and the present to the extent such files have 

not already been produced; and (3) the medical leave of absence files 

of the individuals whose IP files are produced for the time period 

between February 2019 and the present to the extent such files have 

not already been produced. Moreover, discovery has not been 

concluded and is ongoing, and thus, Grimmway reserves the right to 

amend or revise this response accordingly. 

Plaintiff argues that the identify of employees who sought accommodations from 

defendant, including contract workers, and related disability accommodations are relevant 

because the plain text of its complaint seeks relief on behalf of all of Grimmway’s “current and 

former employees, (including farm labor contractors)[.]” ECF No. 1 at 17. Grimmway argues 

that the complaint only relates to contractors with respect to its sexual harassment allegations, but 

allegations that it discriminated against employees by placing them on an “interactive process 

leave” and then terminating them apply only to direct employees. Grimmway contends it has 

made clear that it only places direct hires or direct employees on such leave, and farm labor 

contractors are not impacted. ECF No. 71 at 16. Grimmway also argues that the parties 

previously agreed on the scope of RFP No. 5. Id. A letter dated July 6, 2022, memorializes this 

discussion. ECF No. 69 at 12-18, 

 The court is not persuaded by Grimmway’s argument. As to any side agreement between 

the parties, Grimmway fails to identify any agreement specific to the RFP at issue and contractor 

documents, and the court finds none. Even if it did identify such an agreement, the court will not 

enforce side agreements between the parties that are not signed stipulations. Grimmway’s 

argument that the contractors were not direct employees and thus not impacted by the 

accommodation-related claims fails because it turns on a question of fact: whether Grimmway 

exerted direction and control over workers seeking accommodation, and to what extent 

Grimmway and contractors shared responsibly for processing requests for accommodation by 

workers. Grimmway asks the court to reach a conclusion on the fact of the employee-employer 

relationship and deny discovery on that basis. The court declines to do so. The motion to compel 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 5 of 8
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 

on this point is GRANTED and defendant is ORDERED to search for and produce all documents 

concerning disability accommodation requests from contract workers submitted between January 

1, 2017, and the present. 

B. Pay Discovery 

The second discovery dispute centers on the issue of pay-related discovery. Plaintiff 

argues defendant has provided incomplete responses to ins Request for Production 82. The 

request and response read, in relevant part, as follows: 

CRD’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET 6, NO. 82 

All DOCUMENTS showing the following additional data fields and 

values for each listed employees sufficient to reflect GEI00288268: 

(1) hours worked, or average hours worked per pay period; 

(2) classification as described in Grimmway’s employee handbook 

at GEI00166378 (full-time, parttime, seasonal, or temporary); 

(3) exemption status (exempt or non-exempt); 

(4) overtime pay, or average overtime pay per pay period; 

(5) tenure of employment at GRIMMWAY; 

(6) seniority date; 

(7) Grimmway’s retirement contribution to said listed employee, or 

Grimmway’s average retirement contributions for each listed 

employee or pay period. 

GRIMMWAY’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET 6, NO. 82: 

Objection. This request fails to describe with reasonable particularity 

each item or category of items to be inspected as required by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 34(b)(1). (See Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 

649-650 (10th Cir. 2008). In the context of this litigation, this request 

is ambiguous, vague, overbroad, oppressive, cumulative and unduly 

burdensome, particularly with respect to its scope and time period. 

This request is ambiguous, vague, and overbroad as phrased, 

rendering a response unduly burdensome. This request seeks 

personal confidential information subject to the privacy rights of 

third parties who have not received notice of the requests and have 

not had the opportunity to object to the disclosure of their personal 

information. In addition, this request calls for the production of 

documents outside the scope of discovery permitted under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b), and this request is neither relevant to the claim or 

defense of any party, admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence, nor proportional to the needs 

of this case. This request is also unduly cumulative, duplicative, 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 6 of 8
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 

harassing, and unduly burdensome; this request has, in substance, 

been previously propounded. See Request Nos. 7 and 11 set forth in 

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents or Electronically 

Stored Information, Set One, to Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, 

Inc. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Grimmway 

responds as follows: Grimmway previously produced non-privileged 

documents in its possession custody or control that are responsive to 

this request. Additionally, discovery has not been concluded and is 

ongoing, and as such, Grimmway reserves the right to amend or 

revise this response accordingly. 

Plaintiff contends that Grimmway has produced some non-privileged documents 

responsive to this request, but has not produced any documents responsive to subparts 1 (hours 

worked, or average hours worked per pay period), 4 (overtime pay, or average overtime pay per 

pay period); or 7 (Grimmway’s retirement contribution to said listed employee, or Grimmway’s 

average retirement contributions for each listed employee or pay period). ECF No. 71 at 21. 

Most recently, during meet and confer, plaintiff attempted to address Grimmway’s argument that 

production would be unduly burdensome by limiting the scope of the request to the last three 

years of employment for each employee at issue. ECF No. 71 at 5. 

 Grimmway argues that the RFP “requires Grimmway to sift through thousands of 

documents and information, including emails, personnel files, benefits file, I-9 files, medical files, 

IP files, investigation files, and miscellaneous files, in order to try to ascertain and collect each of 

the above-referenced data, pages, reports, emails, communications, notes, papers, databases, 

printouts, and files, among other things, that may be responsive to this request, which would take 

months to complete.” It further contends that it has already produced documents, specifically 

“the pay information of its employees who were referred to its Interactive Process Department 

and who are identified on the spreadsheet bearing Bates No. GEI00288268, including their dates 

of employment, their recent hourly pay rate, and their recent annual pay rate[,]” which provide 

sufficient data for damages calculations. ECF No. 71 at 25. 

 It is true that this RFP, if construed in the broadest possible sense, could be unduly 

burdensome. However, plaintiff has clarified that “CRD is seeking only pay records during the 

relevant time period for those employees that have already been identified by name and by 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 7 of 8
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 

Grimmway employee number as potential group [members], and only going back three years. 

CRD is not asking Grimmway to collate or compile data into a summary; CRD is seeking 

documents sufficient to show hours, overtime pay, and retirement contributions which are narrow 

categories of compensation relevant to the calculation of damages and not captured by the hourly 

rate.” ECF No. 71 at 22. This request, as modified, is not unduly burdensome in proportion to 

the plaintiff’s need for the information. The court agrees with plaintiff that “Grimmway has not 

and cannot explain why it would be unduly burdensome to produce records it is required by law 

to have in its possession.” ECF No. 71 at 22. Accordingly, the motion is granted on this point. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons explained above, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to compel at 

ECF No. 56/57 is GRANTED, and defendant is ordered to: 

a. search for and produce all documents concerning disability accommodation 

requests from contract workers submitted between January 1, 2017, and the 

present; 

b. search for and produce documents sufficient to show hours and rates of pay over a 

three-year period for those employees who have already been identified by name 

and by Grimmway employee number as potential group members, including 

overtime and retirement contributions; and 

c. amend its responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One, No. 5, and 

Request for Production of Documents Set Six, No. 82 to certify search efforts and 

log responsive documents, if any. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 3, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 05/06/24 Page 8 of 8