America Maxwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tyson Foods, Inc. dba Tyson Fresh Meats, Defendant No. 1:08–cv–00017–JAJ Signed February 07, 2012 Jarvey, John A., United States District Judge ORDER *1 This matter comes before the court pursuant to defendant's November 18, 2011 motion for reconsideration and review of Magistrate Judge Shields' November 1, 2011 Order [dkt. 192] granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant to provide further responses to plaintiffs' first set of requests for production of documents [dkt. 201]. Defendant filed its resistance to plaintiffs' motion on December 5, 2011 [dkt. 204, 207]. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on December 15, 2011 [dkt. 208]. Plaintiffs argue that Judge Shields' Order was clearly erroneous and contrary to law in that it only ordered defendant to produce timekeeping and payroll information in nonnative electronic Excel spreadsheets despite plaintiffs' need for original payroll data, and ordered that defendant produce New Employee/Checklists only if they were part of an opt-in plaintiff's personnel file, despite the testimony of defendant's own witness that these documents are maintained by supervisors for all hourly production employees. Defendants resist plaintiffs' motion, arguing that Judge Shields' order was the product of multiple rounds of briefing and oral argument, and that with regard to the two narrow portions of the Order that plaintiffs now challenge—a different format of pay and punch records, and employee checklists for non-class members—plaintiffs have already received vast amounts of data. Defendants claim that plaintiffs have not articulated why the additional data is needed. Further, defendants argue that Judge Shields' decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and accordingly, plaintiffs' motion should be denied forthwith. In reply, plaintiffs argue that defendant is obligated to produce timekeeping and payroll records in their original format, instead of producing Excel spreadsheets allegedly containing the same information. Plaintiffs contend that, as this is a donning and doffing case challenging defendant's timekeeping and payroll practices, it is critical they be able to utilize defendant's payroll documents at trial in a meaningful manner. Therefore, it was clearly erroneous for Judge Shields to conclude that defendant's production of the timekeeping and payroll information in a non-native electronic format was sufficient, as such denies plaintiff both the ability to verify the accuracy of defendant's timekeeping record and the ability to have manageable payroll records for trial. Plaintiffs further argue that Judge Shields erred in requiring defendant to produce New Employee/Supervisor Checklist[s] only for opt-in plaintiffs, but rather should have required defendants to produce these checklists for all production employees who are potential class members under plaintiffs' state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), “a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court.” Section 636(b)(1)(A) further provides that “A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this paragraph under this subsection (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a) provides, in pertinent part: *2 When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision ... The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. This court has reviewed this matter in its entirety and finds nothing “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” about Judge Shields' November 1, 2011 Order. The parties briefed the topics at issue exhaustively and Judge Shields heard oral arguments on plaintiffs' motion. Judge Shields specifically considered plaintiffs' arguments regarding the production of payroll data, punch records, and/or time and attendance records in their original format, and ruled that “ [p]laintiffs have not persuasively shown that the spreadsheet produced by Tyson Foods is not ‘reasonably usable’ or that relevant, discoverable information has been excluded.” See Dkt. 192, pp. 9–10. This court finds such conclusion to be neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Likewise, this court will not modify or set aside Judge Shields' Order regarding the production of “New Employee/Supervisor Checklists.” Finally, this court notes that Judge Shields found that the parties needed to re-visit the “meet and confer in good faith” requirement of Local Rule 37(a) to discuss the “organization and completeness of Tyson Foods' production of information, and determine the content of written supplemental responses from Tyson Foods which will adequately ensure plaintiffs that Tyson Foods' production of documents is complete and responsive to their requests, without placing an unreasonable burden upon Tyson Foods.” Id., p. 8. Judge Shields further instructed that, “[t]o the extent plaintiffs need any additional information to understand or use the [electronic] data [produced in non-native format], plaintiffs' counsel should accept Tyson Foods' offer to further discuss the spreadsheet in good faith during the meet and confer session ordered above.” Id., p. 10. Nothing in the docket sheet indicates that, following the “meet and confer” session, any such additional information was needed. Judge Shields' order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to compel defendant to provide further responses to plaintiffs' first set of requests for production of documents [dkt. 192] is affirmed and adopted in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of February, 2012.