United States District Court, C.D. California
PRESENT: HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
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
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.
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.
24, 2017, Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation
(“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court.
31, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 10.
November 15, 2017, the Court issued a Protective Order
pursuant to the parties' stipulation. Dkt. 29.
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.
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
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).
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