Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00657/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00657-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Best Buy Stores, L.P.
Defendant
Starvona Harris
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STARVONA HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00657-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 9/20/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 120

On September 20, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter in which Defendant seeks to compel 

responses to Requests for Production Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 29, which pertain to Plaintiff’s claim 

that she used her personal cell phone for work-related purposes and is entitled to reimbursement. 

(Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 120 at 1.) 

Upon review of the joint letters, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and orders the parties to further meet and 

confer regarding the production of the phone records, as set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff Starvona Harris filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) 

collective action and California class action lawsuit against her former employer Best Buy Stores, 

L.P. for violations of wage and hour laws. Plaintiff was employed by Best Buy from October 

2013 to September 2014. Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action alleges that she and other non-exempt 

employees used their personal cell phone plans, cell phones, and internet in the discharge of their 

duties and were not reimbursed as required by California Labor Code § 2802. (Second Am. 

Compl., “SAC,” Dkt. No. 59 ¶ 44.)

On September 20, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter, in which Defendant seeks to compel 

Case 4:15-cv-00657-HSG Document 123 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Plaintiff’s responses to the requests that seek documents relating to the fifth cause of action.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has 

the right to the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant 

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Under Rule 26, courts shall limit discovery if 

that which is sought is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (i). 

The party seeking to compel discovery bears the burden of establishing that its request 

satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 

603, 610 (N.D.Cal. 1995). “In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that 

discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting 

its objections with competent evidence.” Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. 

Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

Furthermore, “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by 

precluding discovery, by conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms, by preventing 

inquiry into certain matters, or by limiting the scope of discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective 

order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 

467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

III. DISCUSSION

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 23, 24, 25, and 29 seek documents pertaining 

to Plaintiff’s claim that she used her personal cell phone in the discharge of her duties as a Best 

Buy employee and is entitled to reimbursement. (Joint Letter at 1.) There is no dispute that her 

cell phone records are relevant to the fifth cause of action for violations of California Labor Code 

§ 2802, because “they presumably reflect whether she, in fact, made work-related calls, the 

Case 4:15-cv-00657-HSG Document 123 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

number of such calls, the time spent on such calls, and any expenses incurred for such calls.” 

(Joint Letter at 1.)

Defendant contends that the records are within Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control 

because Plaintiff has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand from her telephone service 

provider Metro PCS. (Joint Letter at 2.)

Plaintiff objected to the requests on the grounds that they are overly broad, are an invasion 

of privacy, and are privileged. (Joint Letter at 4.) Additionally, Plaintiff maintains that the 

records are not in her possession, and that Metro PCS will not release the records without a 

subpoena or court order. (Joint Letter at 4-5.)

Defendant is entitled to copies of Plaintiff’s telephone records during the period of her 

employment, and may obtain them one of two ways: Plaintiff’s production or third-party 

subpoena. Plaintiff’s proposal that Best Buy subpoena the records and have them delivered to 

Plaintiff’s counsel for redaction is unreasonable. If Plaintiff wishes to redact the records, she must 

obtain them from the provider and produce them in the course of discovery. Otherwise, Defendant 

must subpoena the (unredacted) records, which would then be subject to the stipulated protective 

order currently in effect. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer to decide whether

Defendant will subpoena the records or if Plaintiff will obtain them from her service provider and 

produce them with redaction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00657-HSG Document 123 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3