The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND DOCUMENTS
Plaintiffs Margarita Rosales and Angelica Rosales ("Plaintiffs") seek an order compelling the production of documents by El Rancho Farms ("Defendant") and requiring Defendant's person most knowledgeable to submit to oral deposition. (Docs. 25-26). The parties filed Joint Statements on June 6, 2011. (Docs. 27-28). The Court has read and considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on June 13, 2011.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion to compel document production and the deposition of Defendant's person most knowledgeable are GRANTED.
I. Factual and Procedural History
On April 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for the following: violation of the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq; failure to pay wages; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; penalties under Labor Code § 2699, et seq; breach of contract; and violation of unfair competition law. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs brought the action "on behalf of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class comprising all non-exempt agricultural, packing shed, and storage cooler employees employed, or formerly employed, by each of the Defendants within the State of California." Id. at 4.
On March 22, 2011, the parties stipulated to extending case deadlines previously entered by the Court. (Doc. 23). Therefore, the Court set the deadline for completing class discovery as June 3, 2011 and the deadline for class certification as September 9, 2011. (Doc. 24). On May 17, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel production of documents responsive to their discovery requests. (Doc. 25). Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel a deposition of Defendants' person most knowledgeable together with requested documents on May 19, 2011. (Doc. 26).
Pursuant to an agreement made in February 2011, Plaintiffs drafted a protective order for Defendant's review. (Doc. 28 at 6). Defendants agreed to produce discovery after the entry of a protective order. Id. at 3. Initially, Plaintiffs sent a draft to Defendant on February 16, and provided the draft again on May 20, 2011.*fn1 Id at 6.
At the hearing on these motions, Defendant's counsel reported that she had reviewed the draft protective order and anticipated signing it within short order.
The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) states:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged manner that is relevant to any party's claim or defense -- including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things. . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the accident. Relevant information need not be ...