Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 27
`
`BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
`
`Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. (SBN 174156)
`Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. (SBN 245960)
`Lirit A. King, Esq. (SBN 252521)
`31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
`Westlake Village, California 91361
`Telephone:
`(805) 270-7100
`Facsimile:
`(805) 270-7589
`mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
`kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
`lking@bradleygrombacher.com
`
`LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG
`MAJARIAN II
`Sahag Majarian, Esq. (SBN 146621)
`18250 Ventura Boulevard
`Tarzana, California 91356
`Telephone:
`(818) 609-0807
`Facsimile:
`(818) 609-0892
`sahagii@aol.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the
`Proposed Class
`
`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
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00172-NON-HBK
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
`REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`LUIS M. SALAS RAZO, on his own
`behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, a
`Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
`through 100, inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Appoint Interim Counsel
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 2 of 27
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Luis M. Salas Razo (“Plaintiff”) will and
`hereby does move the Court for an Order Compelling Defendant AT&T Mobility Services LLC
`to respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1–3, 5, 13 and 18 and Requests for
`Production of Documents Set One, Nos. 18-20 and further seeks an Order overruling Defendant’s
`objections (1) that Plaintiff has not made a sufficient prima facie showing the class action
`requirements are satisfied; (2) that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending; (3) based on the
`proposed settlement in Wallack et al. v., AT&T, San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No.
`CIVSB2117915; and (4) based on unsupported boilerplate objections; and ordering Defendant to
`provide depositions testimony as to class issues. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the
`amount of $8,280 in light of Defendant’s failure to provide complete discovery responses, instead
`providing evasive responses and improper objections without substantial justification.
`This motion is made following extensive meet and confer of counsel and a telephonic
`Discovery Conference with the Court held on September 20, 2021. Plaintiff’s motion is made
`pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that
`Defendants’ refusal to produce class contact information and class wide discovery is improper.
`This Motion is based upon this Notice the Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the declarations of Kiley L. Grombacher and Leslie H. Joyner, and all
`pleadings, records, and papers on file in this action, and such other further evidence and arguments
`as may be presented at the time of the hearing in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`DATED: September 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
`LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
`
`By: /s/ Kiley L. Grombacher
` Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
` Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
` Lirit A. King, Esq.
` Sahag Majarian, Esq.
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`A. Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................... 1
`B. Procedural history and events leading up to this motion .............................................. 2
`C. The discovery requests at issue and the parties meet and confer efforts ...................... 3
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................. 5
`IV.
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 6
`A. The Court should order Defendant to produce class contact information and a class
`list responsive to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1–3, 5, 13 and 18 ................................ 6
`1. The class contact information sought by Plaintiff is highly relevant ................... 6
`2. Pre-certification disclosure of class member contact information is a “routine
`practice” in Rule 23 class actions ......................................................................... 7
`3. The Court should overrule Defendant’s privacy objection .................................. 8
`B. The Court should order Defendant to produce documents and data responsive to
`Requests for Production Nos. 18-20 .......................................................................... 10
`1. The discovery is highly relevant to both certification and the merits ................ 10
`2. The Court is not required to make a prima facie finding under Rule 23 ............ 11
`3. Although a prima facie showing under Rule 23 is not necessary, Plaintiff has
`not only made such a prima facie showing, but also has shown that the
`discovery being withheld is likely to substantiate the class allegations ............. 11
`4. Defendant’s based on its motion to dismiss should be overruled ...................... 13
`5. AT&T has waived any objections to the discovery based on the Wallack
`settlement ............................................................................................................ 14
`C. Defendant’s remaining objections to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-3, 5, 13, 18 and
`Requests for Production Nos. 18-20 are boilerplate and should be overruled........... 15
`1. Plaintiff’s requests are not unduly burdensome or oppressive ........................... 16
`2. Defendant has not shown that the requested information is privileged as
`confidential business information....................................................................... 17
`3. Defendant’s privilege objections are improper and should be overruled ........... 18
`D. The Court should Order Defendant to provide deposition testimony applicable to the
`members of the putative class .................................................................................... 18
`E. Defendant’s objections to providing class information responsive to Plaintiff’s
`Requests for Admission 1-4 should also be overruled............................................... 19
`F. Plaintiff should be awarded reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $8,280 ....... 19
`V.
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 20
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Table of Contents
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`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
`
`Cases
`A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber
`234 F.R.D. 186 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ........................................................................................ 16
`Adamov v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
`2017 WL 6558133 (E.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................... 7
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson
`2011 WL 540278 (D. Nev. 2011) ....................................................................................... 13
`AECOM Energy & Constr., Inc. v. Ripley
`2018 WL 6266462 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 15
`Amaraut v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.
`2020 WL 8024170 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ..................................................................................... 8
`Arredondo v. Sw. & Pac. Specialty Fin., Inc.
`2019 WL 6128657 (E.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................. 11
`Artis v. Deere & Co.
`276 F.R.D. 348 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ..................................................................................... 8, 9
`Austin v. Foodliner, Inc.
`2018 WL 1168694 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................ 7, 8
`Azimi v. United Parcel Serv.
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (2007) .................................................................................. 5
`Brooks v. Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc.,
`2008 WL 109061 (S.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................................................... 17
`Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.
`523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 19
`Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Mayer Labs., Inc.
`2011 WL 6119146 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 14
`Davis v. Leal
`43 F.Supp.2d 1102 (E.D.Cal. 1999) ................................................................................... 17
`Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC
` 2021 WL 2965438 (2021) ............................................................................................. 2, 10
`Financial Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
`136 FRD 179 (E.D. Cal. 1991) ........................................................................................... 15
`Gonzalez v. City of Maywood
`729 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 19
`Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
`452 U.S. 89 (1981) ............................................................................................................... 7
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Table of Authorities
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 5 of 27
`
`Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp
`169 F.R.D. 303 (E.D.Penn. 1996) ........................................................................................ 5
`Hensley v. Eckerhart
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) ........................................................................................................... 20
`Holmes v. Teer
`2006 WL 1550201 (E.D. Cal. 2006) .................................................................................. 16
`In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig.
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44192 (D. Kan. 2017) ................................................................... 18
`In re Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc.
`2010 WL 4942645 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 16
`Infanzon v. Allstate Ins. Co.
`335 F.R.D. 305 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ........................................................................................ 19
`Io Group Inc. v. GLBT Ltd.
`2011 WL 3443773 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 14
`Kaminske v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
`2010 WL 5782995 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................................. 6, 11
`Kellgren v. Petco, Inc.
`2016 WL 4097521 (S.D. Cal., 2016) .................................................................................. 10
`Kimbo v. MXD Grp., Inc.
`2021 WL 492493 (E.D. Cal. 2021) .................................................................................... 20
`Koo v. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.
`109 Cal.App.4th 719 (2003) ................................................................................................. 8
`Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs. Co.
`253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008) ........................................................................................... 14
`Marsikian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`2009 WL 10673466 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................ 10
`McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles
`894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir.1990) ............................................................................................. 15
`MDK, Inc. v. Mike’s Train House, Inc.
`27 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................ 18
`Minns v. Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing LLC
`2014 WL 4352343N.D. Cal., 2014) ................................................................................. 8, 9
`Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP
`256 F.R.D. 678 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................ 18
`Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Co., LLC
`2018 WL 306681 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 7, 8
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
`437 U.S. 340 (1978) ............................................................................................................. 5
`Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman
`762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir.1985) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`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
`
`
`
`-v-
`Table of Authorities
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 6 of 27
`
`Pham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
`2011 WL 5508832 (D. Nev. 2011) ..................................................................................... 16
`Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court
`40 Cal. 4th 360 (2007) .......................................................................................................... 9
`Pizana v. Sanmedica Int'l, LLC
`2020 WL 6075846 (E.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 9
`Rannis v. Recchia
`380 F. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 12
`Robinson v. Chefs' Warehouse
`2017 WL 836943 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................... 11
`Romero v. Select Emp. Servs., Inc.
`2020 WL 2084967 (C.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 9
`Salgado v. O'Lakes
`2014 WL 7272784 (E.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................... 8
`Sansone v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
`2019 WL 460728 (S.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................................... 6, 7
`Scott v. Snelling & Snelling, Inc.
`732 F. Supp. 1034 (N.D. Cal. 1990) ................................................................................... 17
`Shaw v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
`306 F.R.D. 293 (S.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................ 16
`Skellerup Industries Limited v. City of Los Angeles
`163 F.R.D. 598 (C.D.Cal.1995) .......................................................................................... 13
`Soto v. City of Concord
`162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ....................................................................................... 10
`Tradebay LLC v. eBay, Inc.
`278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) .......................................................................................... 13
`Trujillo v. Chef's Warehouse W. Coast LLC
`2020 WL 7315346 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................................ 7, 8
`U.S. ex rel. O'Connell v. Chapman Univ.
`245 F.R.D. 646 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................................................................ 15
`United States v. Procter & Gamble
`356 U.S. 677 (1958) ............................................................................................................. 6
`United States v. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co
`36 F.R.D. 2050 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) .......................................................................................... 6
`Wiegele v. FedEx Ground Package Sys.
`2007 WL 628041 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................... 7, 8
`Willner v. Manpower, Inc.
`2012 WL 4902994 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 7
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`Table of Authorities
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 7 of 27
`
`Rules
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 ................................................................................ passim
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) ................................................................................ 4
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 ............................................................................... ii, 6, 19
`Federal Rules of Evidence 501 .............................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`-vii-
`Table of Authorities
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 8 of 27
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This putative class action arises from Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and members
`of the putative class all wages owed and failure to pay meal and rest period premiums wages at
`the regular rate. On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff served his first sets of Interrogatories and Requests
`for Production on Defendant seeking information going to the propriety of class certification. This
`motion addresses Defendant’s deficient responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-3, 5, 13, 18
`and Requests for Production Nos. 18-20, which seek class contact information, a class list, class
`payroll policies, compensation data, timekeeping information, wage statements policies and wage
`statements. This motion further addresses Defendant’s refusal to provide deposition testimony
`applicable to the members of the putative class.
`Defendant’s current modus operandi is to engage in any tactic to delay and frustrate
`Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this action. After multiple requests for continuances of the response
`deadline (which Plaintiff accommodated as a professional courtesy), Defendant has taken the
`indefensible position that Plaintiff is not entitled to class discovery in this action. The time has
`come for AT&T to stop dragging its feet and produce meaningful discovery. Plaintiff’s motion
`for class certification is due on December 13, 2021 and Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of a class
`list and class wide policies and data well before then as each of the requested items are germane
`to Plaintiff’s ability to meet her burden to establish the requisite showing for certification under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
`While Plaintiff’s counsel generally does not seek sanctions in the context of discovery
`disputes, or otherwise, Defendant’s conduct has been particularly egregious and its refusal to
`produce the relevant discovery utterly meritless. As such, Plaintiff is requesting that they Court
`impose sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $8,280.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Statement of Facts
`A.
`Plaintiff Luis M. Salas Razo is a former hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendant who
`worked at an AT&T Mobility Store in Madera, California as a sales representative for eleven
`years until June 2018. The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that throughout his employment
`
`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-
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 9 of 27
`
`AT&T, AT&T improperly paid him meal and rest period premiums at his base hourly rate rather
`than his regular rate. The operative Second Amended Complaint asserts six causes of action on
`behalf of Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for (1) failure to
`pay wages for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to pay all wages
`due at termination of employment; (4) failure to provide timely, accurate wage statements; (5)
`violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.; and (6) civil penalties for
`violation of California Labor Code §§ 2698, et. seq. (“PAGA”).
`Procedural history and events leading up to this motion
`B.
`This case was filed on August 27, 2019 in Superior Court for the County of Madera.
`(ECF No. 1-2). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on January 9, 2020. On January 31,
`2020, AT&T removed the action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed
`a Second Amended Complaint on July 30, 2020. (ECF No. 9.)
`On August 13, 2020, AT&T moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the
`alternative, stay this case. (ECF No. 10). In its briefing on the motion, AT&T admits that it has
`been AT&T’s practice to pay premium rates to its employees for missed meal and rest periods at
`the employee’s base hourly rate:
`As Razo alleges, AT&T pays a premium rate equivalent to its employee’s base
`hourly rate. ECF No. 9, ¶ 28. But he claims this is unlawful—that AT&T must
`include his bonuses and commissions when calculating premiums. Id. He is
`wrong.
`Id. at 10:24-11:2 Plaintiff filed his opposition on August 25, 2020 (ECF No. 11). AT&T filed its
`reply on September 8, 2020. (ECF No. 15). On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of
`supplemental authority in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss identifying the California
`Supreme Court’s decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, No. S259172, 2021 WL
`2965438 (Cal. July 15, 2021), unanimously holding that employers are required to pay meal and
`rest break violation premiums at the same “regular rate of pay” they use for paying overtime and
`confirming that the decision applies retroactively to meal and rest break violation premium
`payments previously made or owed. Id. at *11-12. (ECF No. 21.) AT&T’s motion to dismiss
`remains pending.
`
`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-
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`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
`
`Meanwhile, the parties engaged in a Rule 26 conference and on September 14, 2020,
`filed a Joint Rule 26 Report (Dkt. No. 16). In the Report, the Parties proposed a class certification
`motion deadline of September 14, 2021. On September 21, 2020 the Court, the Honorable Jeremy
`D. Peterson then-presiding, conducted a scheduling conference. (ECF No. 18). On September 22,
`2020, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting forth various deadlines in the case, but did not
`expressly adopt or reject the Parties’ proposed class certification motion deadline. Id. The parties
`exchanged initial disclosures on October 14, 2020.
`On August 11, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defense Counsel regarding
`ambiguity with respect to the class certification briefing deadlines proposed by the Parties in the
`Parties’ Joint Rule 26 Report filed on September 14, 2020. (ECF No. 16). On August 18, 2021,
`the Parties submitted a joint stipulation to extend the class certification briefing deadlines
`previously proposed in this case by 90 days. (ECF No. 22). The Court granted the Parties’
`stipulation on August 22, 2021, and set the deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class
`certification for December 13, 2021. (ECF No. 23).
`The discovery requests at issue and the parties meet and confer efforts
`C.
`Plaintiff propounded his first sets of document requests and special interrogatories on
`Defendant on July 28, 2020. Grombacher Decl. at ¶ 5. The discovery seeks information and
`documents highly relevant to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, including class member
`contact information and class list and class time and pay policies and data. Specifically, Special
`Interrogatories Nos. 1-3, 5, 13, 18 seek a class list setting forth the names, last known address,
`last known telephone numbers, last known email address, dates of employment, job titles and
`employee identification numbers of the members of the putative class. See Ex. 1 to Grombacher
`Decl. Requests for Production Nos. 18-20 seek payroll policies, compensation data, timekeeping
`information, wage statements and wage statement policies. See Ex. 2 to Grombacher Decl.
`After a series of extensions, Defendant served its objections and responses to Plaintiff’s
`discovery requests on February 22, 2021. See Exs. 3-4 to Grombacher Decl. On April 7, 2021,
`Plaintiff sent Defendant detailed 12-page meet and confer letter outlining the deficiencies with
`respect to Defendant’s discovery responses, along with a proposed stipulated protective order and
`
`
`
`-3-
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 11 of 27
`
`proposed ESI Protocol. See Ex. 5 to Grombacher Decl. On May 14, 2021, Defendant responded
`to Plaintiff’s letter standing by its refusal to produce class wide discovery. See Ex. 6 to
`Grombacher Decl. Although a settlement in principle had already been reached in the Wallack
`action on March 29, 2021 and a Memorandum of Understanding executed on April 30, 2021,
`Counsel for AT&T did not inform Plaintiff’s Counsel of the existence of the settlement or raise
`the settlement as an additional basis for withholding discovery. See id.
`On August 3, 2021, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s corporate witness(es)
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). See Ex. 7 to Grombacher Decl. Also on
`August 3, 2021, Plaintiff’s Counsel sent a follow up email to defense counsel in an effort to further
`narrow the scope of the Parties’ discovery disputes before presenting them to this Court. See Ex.
`9 to Grombacher Decl. Plaintiff’s Counsel also provided defense Counsel with the Court’s
`discovery conference procedures and requested Defense Counsel’s availability for a discovery
`conference the following week. Id. However, the Parties were unable to schedule a call until
`August 25, 2021. Id.
`On August 11, 2021, Defendant served its objections and responses and Plaintiff’s Notice
`of Deposition of Defendant in which Defendant refused to provide deposition testimony as to the
`members of the class on the purported bases that Plaintiff has not made a sufficient prima facie
`showing the class action requirements are satisfied; that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is
`pending; and based on unsupported boilerplate objections. See Ex. 8 to Grombacher Decl.
`On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff propounded his first set of requests for admission on AT&T
`seeking admissions from AT&T that throughout the class period, AT&T paid meal and rest period
`premiums to Plaintiff and the members of the putative class at the base hourly rate, rather than
`the regular rate. See Ex. 10 to Grombacher Decl.
`After repeated efforts to schedule a conference which were frustrated by Defendant’s
`Counsel’s represented lack of availability, finally, on August 25, 2021, the parties engaged in a
`telephonic meet and confer for the purpose of discussing Defendant’s refusal to produce class
`wide discovery prior to bringing the issue to the Court. Grombacher Decl. at ¶ 10. During the call
`counsel for AT&T informed Plaintiff’s counsel that AT&T had reached a settlement with other
`
`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-
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 12 of 27
`
`plaintiffs’ counsel in another action (Wallack) to settle the class claims in this case. Id. Counsel
`for AT&T stated that in light of the proposed settlement, AT&T would not be producing class
`discovery but would consider an individual settlement for Plaintiff only. Id.
`On September 13, 2021, AT&T served its responses to Mr. Razo’s first set of requests for
`admission in which it admitted that that it paid meal and rest period premiums to Plaintiff at his
`base hourly rate but refused to respond as to the putative class. See Ex. 10 to Grombacher Decl.
`On September 17, 2021, the parties submitted briefs outlining the scope of the discovery
`dispute between the parties. (ECF Nos. 30-31). On September 20, 2021, the Court held an
`informal discovery conference during which the Court indicated it was inclined to grant Plaintiff's
`requested discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), finding it relevant and directed at the core of
`class certification issues. (ECF No. 31). The Court permitted Plaintiff to file a motion to compel,
`and set a briefing schedule on the motion.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1),
`[p]arties 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, … Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
`evidence to be discoverable.
`Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
`
`consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
`
`without the evidence.” Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. The “relevance” standard has “been
`
`construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another
`
`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); see also Azimi v. United Parcel Serv., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`49762 (2007) (“Relevancy is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be considered
`
`relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the claim or
`
`defense of any party.”) (emphasis added).
`The purpose of discovery is to disclose, to the fullest practicable extent possible, the basic
`issues and facts of a case.” Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp, 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D.Penn. 1996) (citing
`
`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-
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00172-NONE-HBK Document 34 Filed 09/24/21 Page 13 of 27
`
`United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958)); see also United States v. West
`Virginia Pulp and Paper Co. 36 F.R.D. 2050, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (The function of discovery is
`to accord to all parties “the fullest knowledge of the facts and of clarifying and narrowing the
`issues.”). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure
`to disclose, answer, or respond.” FRCP 37(a)(3) (emphasis added). When a party fails to respond
`to proper discovery, Rule 37 allows the propounding party to move to compel such responses and
`for appropriate sanctions. FRCP 37(a)(2)(A).
`Where a party fails to respond properly to a discovery request without substantial
`justification, and the propounding party successfully moves to compel, the court must require the
`party “whose conduct necessitated the motion” to pay the reasonable expenses, including
`attorney’s fees, of the moving party where it is just to do so. FRCP 37(a)(4); FRCP 37(d)(3). The
`burden is on the losing party to affirmatively demonstrate that its position was substantially
`justified. FRCP 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970). Unlike FRCP 37(b) (failure to comply
`with court order), sanctions under FRCP 37(d) do not require violation of