Aguirre-Valdivia v. Mastercorp, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANA AGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, Case No.: 19-CV-2424-CAB(WVG) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY 13 v. CONFERENCE 14 MASTERCORP, INC., [Doc. Nos. 36, 37.] 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 The Court held a discovery videoconference on July 17, 2020 and heard arguments 19 regarding a dispute over the scope of permissible class discovery. (See Doc. Nos. 36, 37.) 20 The dispute is over Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) which seek 21 production of: 22 A. Names and contact information for non-exempt California employees using MasterMind1 and those who underwent the secure biometric clock-in 23 procedures. See RFP No. 1 (Ex. A, pgs. 4-6) and Rog No. 1 (Ex. B, p. 2).2 24 25 1MasterMind is an app which allows housekeepers to get their assignments in “real time” 26 and check their work schedule. MASTERCORP, https://www.mastercorp.com/en/news/ 27 latest-news/mastermind-mobile-housekeeping-assignments-smart-phone 28 2 1 B. Documents reflecting MasterCorp’s policies and procedures for 2 reimbursing non-exempt California employees for use of their cell phones to 3 access MasterMind and communications regarding its reimbursement policies to these employees. See RFP 12 and 4 (Ex. A, pgs. 6-7). 4 5 C. Documents relating to MasterCorp’s policies and procedures for 6 clocking-in and tracking all hours worked applicable to non-exempt employees in California. See RFP 5 and 7 (Ex. A, pg. 6). 7 8 (Doc. No. 36 at 3.) 9 Defendant objects to discovery at locations other than the Lawrence Welk Resort 10 (“Welk”) because it contends its company-wide policies are compliant with State law and 11 Plaintiff has failed to show violations at locations other than Welk. (Doc. No. 36-3 at 8.) 12 However, the Court finds Defendant’s objections are against the spirit of the Federal Rules 13 of Civil Procedure (“Rules”), which allow for broad discovery, and this Court’s Civil 14 Chambers Rules (“Chambers Rules”), which prohibit boilerplate objections and 15 conditional responses to discovery requests. Judge Gallo’s Chambers Rules, Appendix B 16 (“Waiver of Discovery Objections”). 17 The Court is dismayed that Defendant’s justification for its objections to state-wide 18 policy production was not explained until the discovery videoconference. Despite stating 19 every request was objectionable for the same reasons, Defendant did not attempt to 20 demonstrate how or why the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, or irrelevant. 21 This Court’s Chambers Rules unequivocally instruct against boilerplate objections or 22 conditional waivers. As a result, the Court finds that Defendant failed to properly object 23 despite the Court’s Chambers Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 24 25 26 27 information only to those who used MasterMind and/or underwent the secure biometric 28 1 After reviewing Plaintiff’s discovery requests and Defendant’s objections, and 2 considering the arguments asserted by both parties at the discovery videoconference and 3 in briefing, the Court issues the rulings below. 4 II. DISCUSSION AND RULING 5 A. Defendant Shall Produce Names and Contact Information for a Mutually Agreeable Randomly Selected Group of 100 Non-Exempt California 6 Employees Who Use Mastermind and/or Undergo Biometric Clock-In 7 Procedures, Provided Plaintiff Limits Discussion to These Issues Only. 8 Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s request for names and contact information for non- 9 exempt California employees using Mastermind and those who underwent the secure 10 biometric clock-in procedures on the grounds that the request was “overbroad, unduly 11 burdensome, and [sought] information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs 12 of Plaintiff’s claims[.]” (Doc. No. 36-3 at 7.) Specifically, Defendant contends its expense 13 reimbursement policy and timeclock procedures are compliant with State law and Plaintiff 14 merely speculates that violations occurred state-wide simply because they occurred at 15 Welk. (Doc. No. 37 at 3-4.) 16 Defendant’s objections are against the spirit and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure, which allow for broad-based discovery within certain parameters—relevancy 18 being one of them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The relevance standard is generally recognized 19 as broad in scope in order “to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could 20 lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” 21 Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)3 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 22 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). Here, while Plaintiff may not have specific evidence of 23 violations now, it is not beyond comprehension that Defendant’s conduct at one location 24 25 3Although Rule 26(b)(1) now limits discovery to information relevant to “claims and 26 defenses and proportional to the needs of the case” rather than “the subject matter involved 27 in the pending action,” the Oppenheimer Fund definition is still of historical significance. San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 15cv1401-BEN-MDD, 2017 28 1 occurred at others. Thus, because Plaintiff’s discovery request is relevant to the claims 2 involved in the pending action, it is within the scope of discovery as outlined in the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 That being said, Defendant’s objection regarding proportionality is not without 5 merit. Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case considering the parties’ 6 access to the information, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 7 whether the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 26(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff has no easier way of determining whether violations occurred at 9 other locations, and Defendant admitted in the discovery videoconference there is no 10 burden to them in producing the requested list of employees. Defendant’s concern lies in 11 Plaintiff engaging in a “fishing expedition” for other claims. For this reason, the Court will 12 limit Plaintiff to only inquire about the MasterMind app and biometric clock-in procedures 13 when contacting these employees. In addition, the Court limits the production to a mutually 14 agreed upon randomly selected group of 100 non-exempt California employees. During 15 the discovery videoconference, both parties agreed a representative sample of employees 16 would be more reasonable for this type of inquiry. 17 B. Defendant Shall Provide Specific Objections to RFPs 4, 5, 7 and 12. 18 Defendant’s objections were the same for RFPs 4, 5, 7 and 12. Defendant objected 19 on the grounds that the requests were “overbroad, unduly burdensome, and [sought] 20 documentation and ESI that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of Plaintiff’s 21 claims to the extent it seeks . . . documentation or ESI regarding . . . site specific information 22 for locations other than Welk[.]” (Doc. No. 36-3 at 11-16, 21-22.) However, where a 23 responding party provides a boilerplate or generalized objection, the objection is 24 insufficient and “tantamount to not making any objection at all.” Walker v. Lakewood 25 Condo. Owners Ass’n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citations omitted). The 26 responding party must clarify, explain, and support its objections. Anderson v. Hansen, No. 27 09CV1924-LJO-MJS(PC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131010 at *9 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2012) 28 (citation omitted) (overruling unsupported boilerplate objections in their entirety). 1 Further, Defendant conditionally responded to RFPs 4, 5, 7 and 12 by stating it 2 || would produce the responsive non-privileged documents after a reasonable search and 3 ||inquiry, “subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections[.]” (Doc. No. 36-3 at 11- 4 || 16, 21-22.) However, conditional responses are not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil 5 || Procedure and this Court’s Chambers Rules. Rule 34(b)(2) permits only three responses to 6 discovery request: produce the documents; object to the request as a whole; or object to 7 || part of the request, provided the response specifies the part objected to and responds to the 8 ||non-objectionable portion. Sprint Commc’ns. Co. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns., LLC, No. 9 || 11-2684-JWL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16938 at *9 (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2014). In addition, 10 ||Rule 26(g)(1)(B)G)-(i1) requires parties responding to discovery requests to certify the 11 ||responses are consistent with the Rules, “not imposed for any improper purpose,” and are 12 ||“‘neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome.” Conditional responses to discovery 13 ||requests serve only to “waste the time and resources of both the Parties and the Court.” 14 || Consumer Elecs. Ass’n. v. Compras & Buys Magazine, Inc., No. 08-21085-CIV, 2008 U.S. 15 LEXIS 80465 at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 18, 2008). Because conditional responses are 16 |/improper, the objections may be considered waived, and the response to the discovery 17 |/request stands. Estridge v. Target Corp., No. 11-61490-CIV, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21593 18 *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2012) (citations omitted). 19 Expectedly, Defendant’s boilerplate objections and conditional responses to RFPs 20 ||4, 5, 7 and 12 have left Plaintiff and this Court unclear about what documents will be 21 || produced. In fact, Defendant admitted during the discovery videoconference that Plaintiff 22 ||“might” already have some state-wide policy documents it objected to producing. Thus, 23 || Defendant shall re-draft its objections to RFPs 4, 5, 7 and 12 after consulting this Court’s 24 ||Chambers Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: July 21, 2020 | 27 Hon. William V. Gallo 28 United States Magistrate Judge