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

STARVONNA HARRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 10/5/17 JOINT 

LETTER RE: PLAINTIFF HARRIS'S 

THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 79

On October 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the sufficiency of Defendant 

Best Buy’s responses to Plaintiff Starvona Harris’s third set of requests for production of 

documents. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 79.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s response 

to Request No. 13 was insufficient. Id.at 2.

Request No. 13 seeks 

all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO manual pay requests including, 

but not limited to, policies, instructions given to managers or 

supervisors, DOCUMENTS showing how long it takes to process a 

manual pay request pursuant to the policy set forth in the document 

stamped BB/Harris-Strickland 000887-888, and DOCUMENTS 

showing when hours and compensation associated with manual pay 

requests appear on wage statements.

(Joint Letter at 2.) Best Buy objected to the request of numerous grounds, including that it was 

vague and ambiguous, not temporally or geographically limited, and that it was “premature 

because Plaintiff has not substantiated her class allegations.” (Joint Letter, Ex. 2 at 2-3.) Best Buy 

responded subject to the objection and provided that it would produce its policies concerning the 

submission of manual pay requests. (Joint Letter, Ex. 2 at 3.) 

Plaintiff now seeks the online manual pay requests (“MPR”) relating to final payment, 

whether paid via direct deposit or by paper check, “to support Plaintiff Harris’s claim that 
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

Defendant failed to timely pay all wages due to putative class members when their employment 

ended, in violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203.” (Joint Letter at 2.) Plaintiff claims that the 

information is necessary to show when the payments were made versus when they were submitted. 

Id. at 3. In opposition, Best Buy contends that Plaintiff already has the information requested in 

other documents and databases, including the former employees’ respective dates of termination 

and the dates final checks were written, and has not provided any rationale as to how the form of 

payment—direct deposit or manual check—is relevant. (Joint Letter at 4-5.) The Court agrees. 

There is no allegation that manual paper checks were not mailed on or around the date the 

checks were issued, and to require Best Buy to manually search its old databases to retrieve 

information that is not contained in its current database is unduly burdensome and not proportional 

to the needs of the case. This would hold true even if Best Buy’s estimation that it would take 3-5 

minutes per employee is exaggerated. (See Joint Letter at 5.) Moreover, information regarding the 

policy and practice of MPR for final payments would be better obtained using other discovery 

devices, such as interrogatories or deposition.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to compel a supplemental response to Request 

No. 13 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge