United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER Re: Dkt. No. 32
DONNA M. RYU, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is a joint discovery letter filed by Plaintiff Roberta Watterson and Defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC. [Docket No. 32.] Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's Amended Responses to Defendant's Requests for Admission ("RFA") Nos. 20-21 are insufficient, and requests that the court deem them to be admitted. Defendant also claims that Plaintiff made an untimely objection, and seeks an order striking Plaintiff's "legal conclusion" objection from her responses to Defendant's Interrogatory Nos. 23-24. Plaintiff contends that her responses and objections were timely and appropriate. The court finds that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the court finds that Plaintiff's responses are inadequate.
A. Factual Allegations
Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant. Compl. [Docket No. 1-3 at 3] at 9; Docket No. 24 at 1. Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Alameda County Superior Court on March 13, 2014, alleging claims for (1) violation of California Labor Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1997, and 1198, for failure to pay hourly and overtime wages; (2) violation of California Labor Code § 2802(a), for failure to indemnify for all necessary expenditures incurred in direct consequence of discharge of duties; (3) violation of California Labor Code § 221 et seq., for implementing illegal wage deductions; (4) violation of California Labor Code § 226, for failure to provide accurate written wage statements; and (5) violation of the Business and Professional Code §§ 17200 et seq., for promoting unfair business practices.
Plaintiff contends that in connection with their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were required to attend "Wellness Exams, " and were penalized if they failed to do so. Compl. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant failed to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses related to the Wellness Exams. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to pay for all hours worked including, but not limited to, time related to attending the Wellness Exams, as well as time devoted to filling out a mandatory health survey. Id. at ¶ 16.
B. Discovery Requests and Responses at Issue
The current dispute involves Defendant's RFA Nos. 20-21 and Interrogatory Nos. 23-24. Defendant first served these discovery requests on November 4, 2014. Letter Ex. 1 at 5; Ex. 4 at 6. Plaintiff provided timely responses to both the RFAs and Interrogatories on December 22, 2014, and then provided amended responses on February 12, 2015. Letter Ex. 2 at 23; Ex. 3 at 23; Ex. 5 at 24-26; Ex. 6 at 26-28.
RFA Nos. 20-21 are as follows:
RFA No. 20: Admit that the WellRewards program described in Exhibit A is a "wellness program" as defined in 26 C.F.R. § 54.9802-1(f)(1).
RFA No. 21: Admit that the WellRewards program described in Exhibit B is a "wellness program" as defined in 26 C.F.R. § 54.9802-1(f)(1).
Plaintiff's responses to RFA Nos. 20 and 21 were identical, and were repeated in her amended responses. The amended responses to both RFA Nos. 20 and 21 are as follows:
Plaintiff's Amended Response to RFA Nos. 20 and 21: Responding Party incorporates the General Objections set forth above. Plaintiff objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, and seeks a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to this discovery request, both individually and as a whole, on the ground that it is overly broad, burdensome and oppressive. Plaintiff further objects to this discovery request on the grounds that it violates Plaintiff's privacy rights. Plaintiff objects to this discovery request on the ground that no distinction is made between privileged and non-privileged information, documents, and/or trial preparation materials and, therefore, these requests call for information and material which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and which is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product privilege doctrine. In setting forth its responses, Plaintiff does not waive the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privilege or immunity from disclosure that may attach to information called for in, or responsive to, this discovery request. Moreover, in answering all or ...