Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ortolani v. Freedom Mortgage Corp

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 4, 2018

Gabriela Ortolani
v.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation

          PRESENT: HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: Order (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 44]; and (2) Vacating the Hearing Set for April 12, 2018

         On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff Gabriela Ortolani (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel seeking (a) production of documents and further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 8, and Set Two, Nos. 26 and 27; and (b) permission to take depositions in excess of the Rule 30 ten-deposition limit (“Motion to Compel”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 44. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel set for April 12, 2018, is hereby VACATED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On May 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court alleging various Labor Code violations. Dkt. 1-2, Compl. On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 1-3, FAC.

         On July 24, 2017, Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation (“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court. Dkt. 1.

         On July 31, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 10.

         On November 15, 2017, the Court issued a Protective Order pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Dkt. 29.

         On December 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents and further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 8, which seeks payroll records for the putative class members. Dkt. 31. On January 8, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice finding Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing how the records sought are necessary or relevant to determining numerosity or commonality. Dkt. 36 at 4.

         On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel with a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2. Dkt. 44, MTC; Dkt. 46, Joint Stipulation (“JS”). On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in support of the Motion to Compel. Dkt. 48. The matter thus stands submitted.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effective December 1, 2015 emphasize that “[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 amendments). Salazar v. McDonald's Corp., No. 14-CV-02096-RS (MEJ), 2016 WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) (noting there is “a shared responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts”). Moreover, “Rule 1 is amended to emphasize that just as the court should construe and administer these rules to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, so the parties share the responsibility to employ the rules in the same way.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 advisory committee notes (2015 amendments).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery regarding:

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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