Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 272
defendant had failed to make its “unduly burdensome” objection specific enough to
justify limiting discovery. In this matter, the plaintiff sued on behalf of himself and other
employees of FedEx for unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA and state law. Id. at *1.
The court certified a collective action based on similar-situated individuals who delivered
FedEx packages using vehicles with gross weights of less than 10,001 pounds. Id. At
issue for the plaintiff’s motion to compel was whether the plaintiff could get access to
FedEx’s hand-held delivery scanner data, which among other things recorded their daily
activities like driver’s names, destination, vehicle numbers, and when they were
working. Id. a FedEx produced some of the data for the requested class and collective
members (information for around two hundred class members) but not all of the data
requested. Id. FedEx objected on the full disclosure because the additional scanner
data would not provide relevant information; the request for individualized information
for all opt-ins is not appropriate in an FLSA collective action; the burden and cost of
producing the scanner data outweighs its benefits and is disproportional to the needs of
the case; and the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is not included in the scanner
data and is unduly burdensome to produce. The court did not find FedEx’s objections
persuasive. It held the plaintiff had shown the information was relevant and was not
individualized. Id. at* 2. It also found that FedEx’s GVWR objection was irrelevant
because the plaintiff stated they did not want that information. Id. at 4. The court
analyzed in detail whether the production of the scanner data would be unduly
burdensome. Id. FedEx argued that in similar cases, producing devices for 30,000 class
members had taken 16 weeks to produce similar data and therefore it was unduly
burdensome. Id. at *4. The court recognized the information may have been
burdensome but the court stated that it was proportional for the needs of the case under
Rule 26 (b). Id. The court also found that FedEx’s objections were “generalized
objections” and were insufficient to show the court why there was an undue burden in
producing the requested data. Id.
In Holland-Hewitt, et al. v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 2022 WL 16639114 (E.D. Cal.
Nov. 2, 2022), the court allowed broad discovery despite the defendant’s timely privacy
objections and allowed the plaintiff broad discovery beyond the named representative’s
individual claims. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant wrongfully lapsed or
terminated life insurance policies, including that of the named plaintiff, without first
providing all the consumer protections mandated by Sections 1113.71 and 10113.72 of
the California Insurance Code, including minimum grace periods, proper notices of
lapse, and the right to designate others to receive important duplicative notices and
information regarding the insurance policy. Id. at *3-4. The plaintiff filed a motion to
compel discovery seeking wide-ranging discovery for potential class members, including
policy owner names, address, phone numbers, and “past, present and future” life
insurance beneficiaries. Id. at *3. The defendant sought to limit discovery claiming that
some requests would violate California privacy law and that it was willing to stipulate
that the numerosity requirement was met for class certification. Id. at *4. The defendant
also asserted that the only policy at issue for the named plaintiff was issued prior to
2013, and any discovery beyond that date was not justified. Id. at *5. The court found
the plaintiff had shown that all of her requests were relevant. Id. at *11. It also
determined that the plaintiff established that the non-privileged information for
necessary discovery was within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) because the information was
271
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
