United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL ECF NO. 425, 461
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
On June 20, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Miriam Leyva ("Leyva"). (ECF No. 425.) On July 23, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to compel Leyva to provide further responses to interrogatories and requests for admission served by Defendants. (ECF No. 461.)
The hearing on the motions to compel took place on August 13, 2014. Attorneys Morgan Forsey and Tracey Kennedy appeared on behalf of Defendants. Although class counsel for Plaintiffs was present at the hearing for other matters in this case, Leyva's counsel, Timothy Donahue was not present.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to compel further interrogatory responses from Leyva and grant Defendants' motion to compel an additional deposition of Leyva. Further, the Court will order Leyva's attorney, Timothy Donahue, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the hearing on this matter.
In these consolidated actions, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants arising from alleged violations of California's Labor Code relating to the payment of minimum wages, the payment of overtime wages and the provision of meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs also assert claims under California's Private Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA"), which authorizes "aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations..." Arias v. Superior Court , 46 Cal.4th 969, 980 (2009). The operative complaint is the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on June 11, 2014. (ECF No. 423.)
On January 16, 2014, Defendants propounded interrogatories to Miriam Leyva. Leyva provided responses on February 20, 2014. Defendants contend Leyva's responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8 and 11 are insufficient:
Interrogatory No. 7
State all facts that support YOUR contention that DEFENDANTS failed to provide required meal periods to YOU during YOUR employment with DEFENDANTS. Response: Company requirements did not allow required meal periods and they were not taken, defendants failed to provide those.
Interrogatory No. 8
Identify the dates YOU worked for a period of time in excess of six (6) hours and voluntarily waived YOUR meal period during YOUR employment with DEFENDANTS. Response: No voluntary waivers, worked in excess of 6 hours, as previously indicated, every day with perhaps a few exceptions. Off the top of my head I recall none.
Interrogatory No. 11
Identify the dates that DEFENDANTS failed to provide required meal periods to YOU during YOUR ...