Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

6 Eric Gundersen v. Lennar Associates Management 9 LLC

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 Northern District of California


December 3, 2010

6 ERIC GUNDERSEN, 7 PLAINTIFF,
v.
LENNAR ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT 9 LLC, ET AL.,,
10 DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

1

2

5

(DKT. ##147, 148)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

11 12 The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letters, filed on November 24,

For the Northern District of California

For the Northern District of California

COURT

COURT 13 2010. (Dkt. #147 ("Joint Letter 1"); Dkt. #148 ("Joint Letter 2".) The disputes arise from an alleged C C

DISTRICT ISTRICT

16 ("Plaintiff") seeks production of names and contact information for all Construction Managers 14 overtime mis-classification class action suit for Assistant Construction Managers ("ACMs") of 15 Defendant Lennar Associates Management ("Lennar"). (Dkt. #1.) Plaintiff Eric Gundersen

TATES

TATES 17 ("CMs") in California during the class period and of job descriptions for all California CMs during S S

UNITED UNITED

18 the class period. Plaintiff argues that they are necessary for understanding ACMs' job duties 19 because the ACM position is largely designated to assist CMs. (Joint Letter 1 at 1; Joint Letter 2 at 20 2.) Plaintiff further argues that he needs access to the CMs throughout the state. (Joint Letter 1at 3; 21 Joint Letter 2 at 2.) 22 Lennar has refused to provide the contact information to Plaintiff on privacy grounds, 23 insisting that Plaintiff can interview ACMs for their job duties, Lennar has already provided at least 24 ten names of CMs through which Plaintiff can take depositions, and Lennar offered joint interviews 25 of a random sampling of CMs, which Plaintiff rejected. (Joint Letter 1 at 3, 4.) As to the job 26 descriptions, Lennar argues that producing all CMs' job descriptions is overly broad and unduly 27 burdensome because Lennar has to review the employment files of all CMs manually or 28 electronically, and because Lennar has already produced all job descriptions of ACMs and thirty- 1 two CM job descriptions from Lennar's Bay Area Homebuilding Division.(Joint Letter 2 at 3, 4.) 2 Upon careful review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown 3 why he cannot obtain sufficient information regarding ACMs' job duties from ACMs and the 4 information already provided. Therefore, as to job descriptions of all CMs, the Court denies 5 Plaintiffs' request since it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. As to contact information, the 6 Court finds that any need for all CMs' contact information is outweighed by their privacy interests, 7 given that CMs are not putative class members. However, the Court notes that Lennar appears to 8 have provided at least ten CMs' names as potential witnesses. (Joint Letter 1 at 3.) Accordingly, as 9 to the CMs identified by Lennar in the witness list, the Court finds that Lennar shall provide contact 10 information for them and specify whether they are current or former employees. In addition, 11 considering the primary job duties of ACMs are to assist CMs, the Court further finds that Plaintiff 12 is entitled to depose five CM declarants and a representative sampling of CMs. (Joint Letter 1 at 1,

COURT

COURT 13 4.) Accordingly, the Court orders Lennar to produce five CM declarants and a random sampling of C C ISTRICT ISTRICT

Based on the forgoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for production for contact ORDERS Lennar to produce contact information of the identified CMs within seven days of this 19 order, subject to the protective order (Dkt. #30.). The Court further ORDERS Lennar to produce

20 five declarants and a random sampling of five CMs for deposition (or joint interviews upon 21 Plaintiff's request). The parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine which CMs shall be 22 produced within seven days of this order. Said depositions shall be on a statewide basis. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25

27 28

For the Northern District of California

For the Northern District of California

14 15 the parties to meet and confer to determine which CMs shall be produced.

CMs for depositions or joint interviews upon Plaintiff's request. To facilitate this, the Court orders

STATES TATES

information of CMs, but limited to those identified by Lennar in the witness list. The Court

20101203

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.