Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 23STCV08289, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23STCV08289    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 11

Kelly (23STCV08289)

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Compel Documents

 

Date:                           7/3/24

 

Time:                          9:00 am

 

Moving Party:           Gregory Kelly (“Plaintiff”)

 

Opposing Party:        Encore Group (USA) LLC (“Defendant”)

 

Department:              11

 

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents is granted.

 

BACKGROUND

 

This is a putative class action.  Defendant provides video and audio technology for conventions, conferences, and other events.  Plaintiff used to work for Defendant.  He alleges that Defendant subjected him and other current and former employees to multiple wage-and-hour violations.

 

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to comply with a purported agreement to produce documents in response to document request numbers 11, 34, and 35.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Document Requests

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

 

All DOCUMENTS that reflect work related business expenses paid to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:

 

All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO, reflect, refer to, or record requests from COVERED EMPLOYEES for reimbursement of business expenses during the COVERED PERIOD.

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:

 

. . . All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO, reflect, refer to, or record payments made to COVERED EMPLOYEES for reimbursement of business expenses.

 

(Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, pp. 1-2, underlining in original.)

 

Plaintiff

 

According to Plaintiff, “[t]he only issue remaining” concerning document request numbers 11, 34, and 35 is production of “reimbursement data.”  (Motion to Compel, p. 2.)  He contends the motion to compel should be granted because Defendant “has already agreed to produce” the reimbursement data.  (Id. at p. 3, capitalizing and bolding deleted.)  He asserts that the agreement is reflected in the Court’s November 20, 2023 minute order.  (See id. at pp. 1, 3-4; see also id. at pp. 4-6 [claiming the reimbursement data is relevant].)

 

Defendant

 

Defendant contends the motion should be denied for three reasons:

 

* the November 20th minute order does not “require Defendant to produce” the reimbursement data (Opposition, p. 2; see also id. at p. 3);

 

* “Plaintiff testified that he cannot recall a time he used the Concur or Certify software to request reimbursement and was not reimbursed” (id. at p. 2; see also id. at pp. 3-5); and

 

* “Plaintiff testified he does not have any knowledge as to whether” any other employee “has had problems with being reimbursed for business expenses” (id. at p. 2; see also id. at p. 5).

 

Reply

 

In reply, Plaintiff claims:

 

* Defendant’s interpretation of the November 20th minute order “renders the order superfluous” as to document request numbers 11, 34, and 35 (Reply, p. 1, capitalizing and bolding deleted);

 

* “the requested documents are expected to reflect the non-payment of mileage by omission” (ibid., capitalizing and bolding deleted; see also id. at p. 2); and

 

* it is improper to use “a discovery motion . . . to challenge the merits of Plaintiff’s claim” (id. at p. 2, capitalizing and bolding deleted; see also id. at pp. 3-4).

 

Analysis

 

Defendant’s first contention is technically correct.  The plain language of the November 20th minute order is silent regarding reimbursement data:

 

. . . defendants agreed to produce all relevant payroll records, pay stubs, or electronic equivalent related to the 400 representative sample members identified by the third-party administrator.  Defendants agreed to produce the payroll records, the relevant employee handbook, and policy manuals effective during the relevant class time frame by January 12, 2024.

 

(11/20/23 Minute Order, p. 2; cf. 11/13/23 Joint Statement Re: Discovery Dispute, p. 3 [Plaintiff requesting “class-wide time and payroll data, expense reimbursement data, and any meal period or rest break waivers”], emphasis added.)  Admittedly, silence is different than an express order or agreement and is insufficient to establish an agreement to produce.

 

Nevertheless, the Court finds that the motion to compel should be granted.  The reimbursement data appears relevant and discoverable.  Indeed, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a class claim for failure to reimburse business expenses (see Complaint, ¶¶ 36-39), he requested reimbursement data in the joint statement for the discovery conference (see 11/13/23 Joint Statement Re: Discovery Dispute, p. 3), and he needs the information to support his upcoming certification motion.  (See Motion, pp. 4-6.)  Simply put, the requested documents fall within the scope of permissible class discovery.  

 

Defendant’s second and third contentions do not change the result.  This is a discovery motion, not a merits motion.  Typicality and adequacy are not at issue at this stage, and the Court declines to prejudge them.