Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses [Dkt. 27]; (2) Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions [Dkt. 39]; (3) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 40]; and (4) Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition [Dkt. 45]

*1 On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Jason Holloway (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant 3M Company (“Defendant”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 27, Mot. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions and for Sanctions, dkt. 39, and Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order, dkt. 40. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (“Rule 30(b)(6)”). Dkt. 45.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions; (3) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for Protective Order; (4) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition; and (5) DENIES the parties' requests for sanctions.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Defendant's alleged violation of Plaintiff's rights under California labor and wage laws. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee at Defendant's Oak Hills facility and currently works as a “compounding MCO” on the production floor. Dkt. 23-8, Plaintiff Dep. at 83:12-84:11. On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Class Action Complaint against Defendant in San Bernardino Superior Court. Id. On April 18, 2019, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Dkt. 1. On April 25, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. Dkt. 6.

On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff served a set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission on Defendant. Dkt. 28-1, Declaration of Kayvon Sabourian (“Sabourian Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exs. A, B, C.

On June 19, 2019, Defendant served Responses to the Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. Id., ¶ 4, Exs. D, E, F. In addition, Defendant produced 1,086 pages of documents, “including all of [Plaintiff]'s wage statements and time records dating [back] to March 2015, all of his personnel records, all job descriptions, disciplinary documents, leave of absence records, all relevant 3M policies, its handbook, compensation guides, training materials, and records related to the establishment of the alternative workweek.” Dkt. 29, Declaration of Maria C. Roberts (“Roberts Decl.”), ¶ 16.

On June 26, 2019, the Court vacated the Local Rule deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. Dkt. 12.

On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant's counsel a letter requesting Defendant amend and supplement its responses to the written discovery requests and participate in a conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 37-1. Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. G.

On July 12, 2019, the Court approved the parties' Stipulated Protective Order to facilitate discovery. Dkt. 16.

On July 15, 2019, counsel for both parties participated in a conference of counsel by telephone regarding Defendant's responses to the written discovery requests, but were unable to resolve any disputes. Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 6.

*2 On July 26, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a deadline to file a motion for class certification of October 14, 2019, non-expert discovery cut-off of March 13, 2020, and a deadline to file all motions (including discovery motions) of April 24, 2020. Dkt. 17.

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff was deposed by Defendant.[1] Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11.

On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on behalf of himself and “all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant[ ] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of the action and ending at the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment.” Dkt. 21 at ¶ 4. The FAC sets forth the following claims:

(1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

(2) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods;

(3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

(4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;

(5) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;

(6) Failure to Maintain Required Records;

(7) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties;

(8) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices; and

(9) Representative Action for Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.

Id. On August 29, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 22.

On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Order Denying Class Certification as to All Claims. Dkt. 23. In support of the Motion for Order Denying Class Certification, Defendant filed the following declarations: (1) Declaration of Brian Jackson (“Jackson”), Regional Human Resources Manager, dkt. 23-2; (2) Declaration of Hilda Reyes (“Reyes”), Senior Human Resources Manager, dkt. 23-3; (3) Declaration of Hannah Flor (“Flor”), Plant Human Resources Supervisor at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, dkt. 23-4; (4) Declaration of Sal Briones (“Briones”), General Supervisor at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, dkt. 23-5; and (5) Declaration of Maria C. Roberts, Defendant's counsel, dkt. 23-6, as well as an Appendix of Exhibits, which includes fourteen declarations from non-exempt employees of Defendant at its Oak Hills, California plant, dkt. 23-27, Exs. 20 a-n.

On August 30, 2019, upon receipt of Defendant's Motion for Order Denying Class Certification, Plaintiff served Notices of Deposition on Defendant seeking to take the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones on September 9, 6, 10, and 11, 2019, respectively. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 8, Exs. A, B, C, D.

*3 On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant for September 13, 2019. Dkt. 45-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. C. The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice sets forth 33 subjects for examination. Id.

On September 5, 2019, Defendant served objections to the Notices of Deposition of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 9, Exs., E, F, G, H. On September 5, 2019, upon receipt of Defendant's objections, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel requesting the availability of the witnesses and Defendant's counsel for the four depositions. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. I.

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses with a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 setting forth the parties' positions. Dkt. 27, Mot.; Dkt. 28, JS.

On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel again requesting the availability of the four witnesses for deposition and agreeing to depose Jackson in Austin, Texas, where Jackson works according to Defendant's objections to the notice of his deposition. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. J.

On September 10, 2019, Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter stating Plaintiff was required to subpoena Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones, because they are not parties. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. M. On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel in response stating he did not believe subpoenas were required for these witnesses, requesting their availability for depositions and for a conference of counsel, and asking whether Defendant's counsel would accept service on behalf of the witnesses or provide their contact information.[2] Id., ¶ 15, Ex. N.

On September 12, 2019, Defendant served objections to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Dkt. 45-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. E.

On September 12, 2019, Briones was personally served with a subpoena for his deposition on September 25, 2019. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. Q. On September 13, 2019, Reyes was personally served with a subpoena for her deposition on September 23, 2019, dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. O, and Flor was personally served with a subpoena for her deposition on September 24, 2019, id., ¶ 19, Ex. P. On September 16, 2019, Jackson was personally served with a subpoena for his deposition on September 27, 2019. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. R. On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with copies of the subpoenas for Flor, Reyes, and Briones. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 22, Exs. S, T, U.

On September 18, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 31.

On September 19, 2019, the parties filed supplemental briefs in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. Dkt. 34, Def.'s Suppl. Brief; Dkt. 35, Pl.'s Suppl. Brief. On September 20, 2019, Defendant filed a “Response” to Plaintiff's “Improper Citation to New Legal Authority in Support of Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” Dkt. 38.

*4 On September 20, 2019, Defendant served objections to the subpoenas served on Jackson, Flor, Reyes, and Briones. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 23, Exs. V, W, X, Y.

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones and for Sanctions, dkt. 39, and Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order to avoid the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones, as well as the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, dkt. 40. On September 27, 2019, Defendant filed a declaration in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions. Dkt. 41.

On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition, dkt. 45, an Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, dkt. 46, and Evidentiary Objections, dkt. 47.

On October 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions. Dkt. 48.

On October 4, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the briefing schedules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motions to deny class certification and for summary judgment. Dkt. 49. The Court (1) denied Plaintiff's motion to continue the deadline to oppose the motion for summary judgment; and (2) adopted a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motion to deny class certification continuing the deadlines for Plaintiff's motion and Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion to December 23, 2019. Id.

On October 10, 2019, Defendant filed a Reply in support of the Motion for Protective Order, dkt. 55, and an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition, dkt. 56. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Compel Depositions, dkt. 57, and Evidentiary Objections, dkt. 58.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(b) Deposition, dkt. 61, and Evidentiary Objections,[3] dkt. 62.

Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order thus stand submitted.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

*5 “[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper – especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections.” A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (faulting defendant for making “boilerplate objections to almost every single request for production, including broad relevancy objections, objections of ‘overly burdensome and harassing,’ ‘assumes facts not in evidence,’ privacy, and attorney-client privilege/work product protection”).

“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

“The party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections lack merit.” Bluestone Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. C-13-01770 SI (EDL), 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013). In addition, “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery, the discovery requested must also be proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v. City of Fresno, No. 1:16-CV-653 DAD (SAB), 2016 WL 7491634, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) (citing In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. PUTATIVE CLASS-WIDE DISCOVERY IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE AT THIS TIME

1. Applicable Law

“Prior to certification of a class action, discovery is generally limited and in the discretion of the court.” Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006). In order to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs must set forth facts that support four requirements: 1. numerosity; 2. common questions of law or fact; 3. typicality of the claims or defenses; and 4. adequacy of the representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see also In re Mego Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000); Manigo v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. CV 16-6722-JFW (PLAx), 2016 WL 9281314, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016). “Although in some cases a district court should allow discovery to aid the determination of whether a class action is maintainable, the plaintiff bears the burden of advancing a prima facie showing that the class action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Absent such a showing, a trial court's refusal to allow class discovery is not an abuse of discretion.” Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985), as amended (Aug. 27, 1985) (citing Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977). “In determining whether to grant discovery the court must consider its need, the time required, and the probability of discovery resolving any factual issue necessary for the determination.... Where the necessary factual issues may be resolved without discovery, it is not required.” Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975).

2. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct discovery regarding the entire putative class – “all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant[ ] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of the action and ending at the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment.” Dkt. 21 at ¶ 4. Plaintiff conceded in his deposition that he has no knowledge of operations at any of Defendant's facilities beyond the Oak Hills facility where he worked. See, e.g., dkt. 23-8, Plaintiff Dep. at 126:16-127:7. Plaintiff, thus, seeks to rely upon the declaration of Anthony McCabe in support of his argument that the class is not limited to the Oak Hills facility where Plaintiff worked. Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. J. McCabe worked as a forklift driver at Defendant's Drug Delivery System Division located in Northridge, California from 2010 through July 2018. Id., ¶¶ 3-4. McCabe states during his final year of employment he missed most of his post-meal rest breaks, was not provided a second thirty minute meal break when he “worked shifts of 12 hours or more”, his supervisors interrupted him via walkie-talkie or his personal cell phone during most rest breaks throughout his employment, and his supervisors exclusively communicated with him on his personal cell phone when he made deliveries outside the office without reimbursing him for the costs of using his cellphone. Id., ¶¶ 5-9. In addition, Plaintiff argues his claims that his wage statements did not accurately state the total hours he worked during a pay period, the hours he worked at the shift differential rate, and his overtime shift differential rate are common to all non-exempt employees in California because Defendant's discovery responses state payroll was handled at a centralized location in St. Paul, Minnesota and wage statements were issued on behalf of “USA 3M Company.” Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. D, 5:12-13; Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. W. Plaintiff, therefore, argues precertification discovery must be permitted. Dkt. 28 at 35.

*6 Defendant argues discovery should be limited to Plaintiff's claims because a single declaration from a former employee at a different facility is insufficient to show the discovery sought will substantiate Plaintiff's class claims. Dkt. 28 at 36. Defendant further argues Plaintiff has failed to produce a declaration from an Oak Hills employee to suggest other employees within Plaintiff's facility have been treated as alleged in the Complaint. Finally, Defendant contends Plaintiff testified in his deposition “that his claims are either false or were based on his personal confusion.” Id.

Defendant also presents the declaration of Jackson, who explains Defendant “operates ten facilities in California, with vastly different operations, which function entirely independent of the others.” Dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 3. Jackson explains the “facilities also have independent management which determines shift schedules and some also set break schedules, while others do not. No two 3M facilities are alike.” Id., ¶ 7. Defendant employs approximately 1,900 employees in California, dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 3, and approximately 55 non-exempt employees at the Oak Hills facility, dkt. 23-5, Briones Decl., ¶ 3. Jackson also states McCabe's “statements about his alleged experience working at Northridge is both contrary to 3M's policies at Northridge and what I understand to be the practices at that plant.” Dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 11.

The Court finds class-wide discovery appears disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Speculation is not sufficient to make a prima facie showing as required by Doninger and Mantolete that the class action requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, or that discovery regarding all of Defendant's California facilities is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. See Erami v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. CV-15-7728-PSG (PLAx), 2016 WL 11520703, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016); Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 14-CV-1156 LAB (JLB), 2016 WL 7188231, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (“Absent some factual basis for a plaintiff's claims that defendant's alleged wrongs are class-wide, plaintiffs are not entitled to class-wide discovery; and the plaintiff cannot rely on the bare allegations of the complaint to support class-wide discovery.”). In light of Jackson's declaration explaining the substantial differences between the operations at each facility, one declaration of a former employee at a single other facility, whose personal experience is not consistent with the policies at that facility, does not satisfy Plaintiff's burden to provide persuasive evidence that further discovery is likely to substantiate his class-wide allegations. See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425 (finding that plaintiff's submission of two additional complaints filed against defendant in other locations with similar claims did not “provide a likelihood that discovery measures will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations”). Plaintiff, therefore, fails to submit sufficient evidence to show his experiences, with the possible exception of his wage statements, are class-wide or that further discovery is necessary to substantiate his class claims. Moreover, as to the possible wage statement claims, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show how any of the discovery sought is necessary to resolve any factual issue required to determine class certification. Kamm, 509 F.2d at 210. Hence, Plaintiff's motion to compel class-wide discovery is denied without prejudice as disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

B. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART [DKT. 27]

1. Interrogatories

a. Applicable Law

*7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories to parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. “The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

b. Interrogatory No. 2

Interrogatory No. 2: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California during the COVERED PERIOD and state the dates YOU operated each business location during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 31.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: Jason Holloway has only worked at the 3M plant located in Oak Hills. 3M presently has 7 other plants in operation in California, which operate independently of one another and are located in Northridge, Irvine (3 plants), Corona, and Monrovia (2 plants). Id.

Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the terms YOU and YOUR are improper because they purport to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks to know what facilities Defendant operated in California during the class period. See dkt. 28 at 31-32. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 2 is overbroad is sustained. Nevertheless, because Defendant answered with respect to Defendant's facilities in California, Defendant must do so accurately. In light of Jackson's declaration where he specifically identifies nine plants in California, dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 5, but states Defendant has ten facilities in California, id., ¶ 3, and Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 2 stating it only operates eight plants in California, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a further response is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall serve a verified supplemental response clarifying how many facilities it operated in California from March 14, 2015 through the present, and where each is located.

c. Interrogatory Nos. 3, 9, 19

Interrogatory No. 3: IDENTIFY all supervisory employees in YOUR human resources department and all payroll managers who performed work at for [sic] YOU in the State of California during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 38.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates the privacy rights of third persons. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: The Human Resource Managers who have worked at the 3M plant in Oak Hills are Sonia Solace and Hannah Flor, who may be contacted through defense counsel. Payroll services are handled on a centralized basis out of St Paul, Minnesota. Id.

*8 Interrogatory No. 9: IDENTIFY each PERSON responsible for reviewing and/or approving COVERED EMPLOYEES' records of hours worked during the COVERED PERIOD. Id.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, compound, and violates the privacy rights of third persons. This interrogatory also seeks information that is no [sic] relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M's nonexempt employees at the Oak Hills plant, such as Jason Holloway, are required to accurately record all time worked and verify they have done so. The Human Resource Managers who have worked at the 3M plant in Oak Hills are Jen Deters, Sonia Solace and Hannah Flor, who may be contacted through defense counsel. Payroll services are handled on a centralized basis out of St Paul, Minnesota. Id. at 38-39.

Interrogatory No. 19: IDENTIFY all of YOUR employees who supervised PLAINTIFF during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. at 39.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence and seeks to violate the privacy rights of third persons. In addition, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: The production line supervisors at the 3M's Oak Hills plant are Sal Briones, Ismael Martinez and Nick Baca. Id.

The Court agrees it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks identification of Defendant's employees. See dkt. 28 at 39. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory Nos. 3, 9, and 19 are overbroad is sustained. Nevertheless, Defendant must provide further responses to Interrogatories 3, 9, and 19. First, Defendant confusingly identifies only two Human Resource Managers in response to Request No. 3, but identifies three Human Resource Managers in response to Interrogatory No. 9. Defendant must reconcile these two responses. Second, Interrogatory No. 9 seeks identification of all persons responsible for reviewing or approving employees' records of hours worked. This request is properly limited to persons responsible for reviewing or approving Plaintiff's records, but Defendant's response only states “payroll services are handled on a centralized basis out of St. Paul, Minnesota.” This response is insufficient. Third, Interrogatory No. 19 seeks information regarding Plaintiff's supervisors since March 14, 2015. However, Defendant's response is vague as to whether the named production line supervisors are the only persons who have supervised Plaintiff since March 14, 2015. Finally, Defendant's objection on the grounds of privacy is sustained in part. If Defendant chooses to respond that persons identified in their responses may be contacted through Defendant's counsel, then Defendant must be willing and authorized to accept service of documents on their behalf. Alternatively, the Court finds the protective order issued in this action will sufficiently protect the third parties' contact information. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatories 3, 9, and 19 is GRANTED IN PART.

d. Interrogatory Nos. 4-5

*9 Interrogatory No. 4: IDENTIFY all COVERED EMPLOYEES. Dkt. 28 at 42.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this interrogatory violates the privacy rights of third persons, which 3M is required by law to protect. Id.

Interrogatory No. 5: State all job positions held by COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD and, for each job position, describe in detail the job duties and responsibilities. Id.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, compound, conjunctive, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this interrogatory violates the privacy rights of third persons, which 3M is required by law to protect and seeks information that is confidential and proprietary to 3M. Id. at 42-43.

For the reasons set forth in Section III.A. above, the Court finds Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 are disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. However, the Court agrees the number of putative class members is relevant to establishing numerosity and Defendant does not appear to have provided Plaintiff with the number of putative class members. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 4 is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 5 is DENIED. Defendant shall provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 4 stating the number of putative class members.

e. Interrogatory No. 15

Interrogatory No. 15: State the name of all companies and software programs YOU have used for payroll processing during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 46.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible and compound. This interrogatory also calls for a narrative and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information that is confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the Oak Hills plant, nonexempt employees of 3M record all of their time worked and meal breaks taken through the timekeeping software system in place known as Cybershift. Non-exempt employees are paid through centralized payroll services located in St. Paul, Minnesota based on the time worked, as recorded by the employee. Id.

Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOU is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A.

*10 The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding companies and software programs used by Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 39. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 15 is overbroad is sustained. Nevertheless, because Defendant answered with respect to the Oak Hills facility, Defendant must do so accurately. It is not entirely clear from Defendant's response whether Cybershift is also the software used by the centralized payroll services. The Court finds Defendant's confidential and proprietary information is adequately protected by the protective order already issued in this case. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 15 stating the name of all companies and software programs Defendant has used for processing payroll for employees at the Oak Hills facility since March 14, 2015.

f. Interrogatory Nos. 16-17

Interrogatory No. 16: IDENTIFY all COVERED EMPLOYEES who filed a wage claim against YOU with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or any other governmental agency within the last five years. Dkt. 28 at 48.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence and seeks to violate the privacy rights of third persons. In addition, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M is unaware of a wage claim made/reported by an employee at the Oak Hills plant in the past five years. Id. at 48-49.

Interrogatory No. 17: IDENTIFY all COVERED EMPLOYEES who instituted wage and hour litigation against YOU, including actions in federal and/or state court and administrative proceedings, within the last five years. Id. at 49.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence and seeks to violate the privacy rights of third persons. In addition, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M is unaware of any such litigation being filed by an employee of 3M at the Oak Hills plant in the past five years. Id.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding wage claims and litigation against Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 48-49. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plaint, is sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16-17 is DENIED.

g. Interrogatory No. 18

Interrogatory No. 18: State all positions held by PLAINTIFF during his employment with YOU, the job duties and responsibilities of each position, and the dates PLAINTIFF held each position. Dkt. 28 at 52.

Response: During his employment with 3M, Jason Holloway has held the position of Compounding Maker Coater Operator and, for a short period of time held the role of lead Compounding Maker Coater Operator. Id.

*11 Plaintiff seeks a further response to Interrogatory No. 18 because Defendant has not fully responded with a description of Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities and the dates Plaintiff held each position. Dkt. 28 at 52. The Court finds Defendant has not fully responded to Interrogatory No. 18. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 18 is GRANTED.

h. Interrogatory No. 20

Interrogatory No. 20: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California where COVERED EMPLOYEES earned a SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, each position that earned a SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, and the dates when COVERED EMPLOYEES earned a SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL. Dkt. 28 at 53.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. This interrogatory is also improperly compound, conjunctive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the 3M plant in Oak Hills, nonexempt production employees who are assigned to work C and A shifts are eligible to earn shift premium for working those shifts. Id.

Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 53. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 20 is overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 20, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plant, is sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 20 is DENIED.

i. Interrogatory Nos. 22-23

Interrogatory No. 22: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California where COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last twelve (12) hours, each position that worked shifts scheduled to last twelve (12) hours, and the dates when COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last twelve (12) hours. Dkt. 28 at 55.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. This interrogatory is also improperly compound, conjunctive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the 3M plant in Oak Hills, 12 hours shifts are not a regularly scheduled shift for nonexempt employees, but employees may occasionally be required to work shifts that last more than 10 hours, but no more than 12 hours. Holloway worked shifts of between 11 and up to 12 hours on occasion. Id. at 55-56.

*12 Interrogatory No. 23: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California where COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last ten (10) hours, each position that worked shifts scheduled to last ten (10) hours, and the dates when COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last ten (10) hours. Id. at 56.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. This interrogatory is also improperly compound, conjunctive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the 3M plant in Oak Hills, 10 hours shifts were a scheduled shift for nonexempt employees for a period of time as part of a legal alternative work week. Id.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 55-56. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory Nos. 22-23 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 23, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 22-23 is DENIED.

j. Interrogatory No. 25

Interrogatory No. 25: STATE the number and amount of MEAL BREAK PREMIUMS and REST BREAK PREMIUMS YOU paid to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 58.

Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and in unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. In addition, this interrogatory is compound, conjunctive, and calls for an improper compilation of information. This interrogatory also seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, 3M Company responds as follows: It is and has been the policy and regular practice of 3M to provide legally compliant breaks to non-exempt employees such as Jason Holloway, including providing timely, uninterrupted breaks, except when breaks were waived by the employee as permitted by law. If, on occasion, 3M is unable to provide a legally compliant break, then one hour of premium pay is paid. Id. at 58-59.

*13 The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 58. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 25 is overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 25, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plant, is sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 25 is DENIED.

2. Requests for Production

a. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. “The party to whom the [Request for Production] is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). The requesting party “is entitled to individualized, complete responses to each of the [Requests for Production] ..., accompanied by production of each of the documents responsive to the request, regardless of whether the documents have already been produced.” Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

b. Requests for Production Nos. 2-6, 20

Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20 seek production of “[a]ll DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR” policies regarding meal and rest breaks, the payment of minimum and overtime wages, and reimbursement of business expenses “for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.” Dkt. 28 at 60-64.

Defendant responded to each request with the following objection: This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Id. at 61-64. Without waiving those objections, Defendant agreed to produce copies of its break policies, policies related to overtime hours, and applicable employment policies “for the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order.” Id. In addition, Defendant stated in response to Request for Production No. 6: “3M does not request or allow nonexempt employees at its Oak Hills plant to incur expenses on its behalf or as part of their employment responsibilities.” Id. at 63.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 60-64. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20 are overbroad is sustained. The Court also finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to Defendant's policies is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20, which are limited to the break and employment policies at the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20 is DENIED.

c. Requests for Production Nos. 9-10

*14 Request for Production No. 9: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR employee handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and training materials, for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 75.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of those employment policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant and pertinent to his case, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id.

Request for Production No. 10: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOU providing an extra hour of compensation to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD who were not provided a meal break or rest period. Id.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and assumes facts not in evidence. This request seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff and violates the privacy rights of third persons and may also violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: It is 3M's policy and practice to provide nonexempt employees at Oak Hills with breaks in accordance with the law. 3M will produce a copy of its break policies for the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. at 75-76.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 75-76. The Court also finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to Defendant's policies is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 9-10 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 9-10, which are limited to copies of the break and employment policies at the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 9-10 is DENIED.

d. Requests for Production Nos. 11-12

*15 Request for Production No. 11: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to the dates and hours worked by PLAINTIFF during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including but not limited to time cards, handwritten time cards, electronic time cards, meal period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other DOCUMENTS of any form containing responsive information. Dkt. 28 at 80.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a print-out of Jason Holloway's time punches for the pertinent time period. Id.

Request for Production No. 12: All payroll records relating to PLAINTIFF, including, without limitation, Year-to-Date earnings, Year-End Summaries, and pay stubs reflecting wages and other forms of remuneration/compensation paid at any time during the COVERED PERIOD. Id.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive, calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce copies of the wage statements issued by 3M to Jason Holloway for the pertinent time period. Id. at 80-81.

The Court finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to dates and hours worked by Plaintiff is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Defendant has produced Plaintiff's time records and wage statements from March 2015 to June 19, 2019. Dkt. 29, Roberts Decl., ¶¶ 20-21. The Court finds Defendant has sufficiently responded to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 is DENIED.

e. Requests for Production Nos. 13-14

Request for Production No. 13: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to the dates and hours worked by all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including but not limited to time cards, handwritten time cards, electronic time cards, meal period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other DOCUMENTS of any form containing responsive information. Dkt. 28 at 82.

*16 Request for Production No. 14: All payroll records relating to YOUR COVERED EMPLOYEES, including, without limitation, Year-to-Date earnings, Year-End Summaries, and pay stubs reflecting wages and other forms of remuneration/compensation paid at any time during the COVERED PERIOD. Id.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 82-83. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 13-14 are overbroad is sustained. The Court also finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to dates and hours worked by the putative class is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 13 and 14 is DENIED.

f. Request for Production No. 15

Request for Production No. 15: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to work schedules maintained by YOU of all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 88.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and is improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company respond as follows: 3M will produce a print-out Jason Holloway's time punches for the pertinent time period which reflects the shifts he worked and will also produce copies of any work schedules located related to the assigned shifts worked by Jason Holloway for the pertinent time period. Id.

*17 The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 88. The Court finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to work schedules of the putative class is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Request for Production No. 15 is overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 15, which is limited Plaintiff, is sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production No. 15 is DENIED.

g. Requests for Production Nos. 17-18

Request for Production No. 17: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR time keeping procedures and payroll software for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 91.

Request for Production No. 18: All DOCUMENTS (including but not limited to job descriptions, lists of job duties, classified ads, job opening notifications, and/or lists of essential job functions) which discuss, define or describe the job duties, qualifications, requirements, responsibilities, and/or essential job functions for each and all of the COVERED POSITIONS during the COVERED PERIOD. Id.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 91. The Court finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to time keeping procedures and payroll software is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. The Court finds the requests for documents regarding all putative class members and the “job descriptions, lists of job duties, classified ads, job opening notifications, and/or lists of essential job functions” for each of their jobs is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 17-18 are overbroad is sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 18 is DENIED.

h. Request for Production No. 19

*18 Request for Production No. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to memoranda, charts, diagrams, lists, directories and maps, which show or describe the organizational and/or management structure of YOU during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 94.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M does not have a specific organizational chart for Oak Hills. Id.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 94. The Court also finds production of “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to memoranda, charts, diagrams, lists, directories and maps, which show or describe the organizational and/or management structure” is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Request for Production No. 19 is overbroad is sustained. Defendant has sufficiently responded to Request for Production No. 19. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking an organizational chart for Defendant, Plaintiff has failed to explain the relevance of such a chart to Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production No. 19 is DENIED.

i. Requests for Production Nos. 21-25

Request for Production No. 21: All DOCUMENTS reflecting or evidencing training sessions regarding wage and hour policies that YOU required COVERED EMPLOYEES to attend in connection with their employment with YOU at any time during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. at 94-95.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce copy of the employment policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant and pertinent to this case, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. 3M will also search for and produce documents related to Jason Holloway's receipt and/or training of its policies. Id. at 95.

*19 Request for Production No. 22: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating or referring to YOUR policies and procedures pertaining to employee waivers of meal periods and rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD. Id.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of its break policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. at 95-96.

Request for Production No. 23: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating or referring to waivers of meal periods or rest periods by COVERED EMPLOYEES. Id. at 96.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of its break policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id.

Request for Production No. 24: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to settlement agreements obtained subsequent to the filing of the COMPLAINT from COVERED EMPLOYEES for any of the claims alleged in the COMPLAINT. Id.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: No such agreements have been entered into with current former Oak Hills employees. Id. at 96-97.

*20 Request for Production No. 25: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to the provision of a second meal period to COVERED EMPLOYEES who worked more than ten (10) hours in a day. Id. at 97.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, am[biguous,] overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of its break policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id.

The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 94-97. The Court also finds production of “All DOCUMENTS, constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to” policies, waivers, settlement agreements, or second meal periods is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 21-25 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 21-25, which are limited to the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 21-25 is DENIED.

j. Request for Production No. 26

Request for Production No. 26: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to the payment to COVERED EMPLOYEES of overtime wages based on a regular rate of pay which incorporated the payment of SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS. Dkt. 28 at 103.

Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copies of wage statements issued to Jason Holloway for the pertinent time period, which reflect that his overtime compensation factored in shift premium earned in those workweeks in which Holloway was both paid shift premium and worked overtime. Id. at 103-04.

*21 Defendant's objections to class-wide discovery are discussed above. The Court finds production of “All DOCUMENTS, constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to” payment of overtime wages to the entire purported class is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. The Court finds Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 26, which is limited to Plaintiff, is sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 26 is DENIED.

k. Request for Production No. 27

Request for Production No. 27: All DOCUMENTS bearing the signature of PLAINTIFF. Dkt. 28 at 107.

Plaintiff has not identified what further documents it seeks beyond Plaintiff's personnel and employment records that would be relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Dkt. 28 at 107. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production No. 27 is DENIED.

l. Requests for Production Nos. 29-30

Request for Production No. 29: All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to PLAINTIFF'S Interrogatories (Set One). Dkt. 28 at 109.

Request for Production No. 30: All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to PLAINTIFF'S Requests for Admission (Set One). Id.

Defendant's objections are overruled. Defendant cites no authority for its position that it should not be compelled to produce documents identified in its responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories or Requests for Admission. If, as Defendant argues, Defendant does not identify any documents in its responses, see dkt. 28 at 110, it is not unduly burdensome or harassing to require Defendant to say so in its responses to Requests for Production Nos. 29-30. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 29-30 is GRANTED.

3. Requests for Admission

a. Applicable Law

*22 “A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides:

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

b. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-13, 16-18, and 21-28. Dkt. 28 at 111-23. For the reasons set forth in Section III.A. above, Defendant's responses are appropriately limited to Plaintiff and/or the Oak Hills facility. However, Defendant's responses fail to specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest as required by Rule 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to his Requests for Admission Nos. 1-13, 16-18, and 21-28 is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant's objections as to the scope of its responses, as limited to Plaintiff and/or the Oak Hills plant, are sustained, but Defendant must serve supplemental responses admitting or denying as much as possible.

C. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS [DKT. 39] IS GRANTED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 40] IS DENIED IN PART TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO AVOID THE DEPOSITIONS OF JACKSON, REYES, FLOR, AND BRIONES

1. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs depositions by oral examination. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Rule 30(a)(1) provides that, subject to certain limitations, “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Rule 30(b)(1) provides that a party may request the deposition of another party to the litigation by serving a notice upon that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). A party's failure to appear at that party's deposition “is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2); Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

“However, a corporate employee or agent who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice.” United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd., 159 F.R.D. 408, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Such employees must be subpoenaed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.

“The term ‘managing agent’ should not be given too literal an interpretation but rather should depend largely on whether the interests of the individual involved are identified with those of his principal and on the nature of his ‘functions, responsibilities and authority ... respecting the subject matter of the litigation.’ ” Tomingas v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 45 F.R.D. 94, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (emphasis in original) (finding “although [witnesses] may not be ‘managing agents’ in the course of their everyday duties for the defendant corporation, they are ‘managing agents’ for the purpose of giving testimony regarding the accident investigation, a most relevant aspect of this litigation”). In determining whether a corporate employee will be determined to be a “managing agent,” courts consider the following factors: “(1) whether the individual is invested with general powers allowing him to exercise judgment and discretion in corporate matters; (2) whether the individual can be relied upon to give testimony, at his employer's request, in response to the demand of the examining party; (3) whether any person or persons are employed by the corporate employer in positions of higher authority than the individual designated in the area regarding which information is sought by the examination; (4) the general responsibilities of the individual respecting the matters involved in the litigation.” Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Enhanced Athlete, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01491-TLN (KJN), 2018 WL 888972, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) (quoting Calderon v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 629, 632 (D. Idaho 2012), aff'd, 290 F.R.D. 508 (D. Idaho 2013)). Other factors include “whether the employee can be depended upon to carry out the employer's directions, and ... whether the individual can be expected to identify him or herself with the interests of the corporation as opposed to the interests of the opposing party.” Id.

*23 Moreover, “while the burden is on the party seeking the discovery to prove that the potential witness is a managing agent of the corporation, this burden is a modest one, and at least at the discovery stage, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the party seeking the depositions.... Thus, courts have concluded that if there is at least a ‘close question’ as to the managing agent status of a potential witness, doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing the deposition, with the final determination of whether the agent has the ability to bind the corporation to be left for trial.” Id. (quoting Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 632-33).

2. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks to compel the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones on the grounds they failed to appear for their depositions pursuant to the notices of deposition served on August 30, 2019, or, alternatively, they failed to comply with the subpoenas served on September 12, 13, and 16, 2019.

Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones on August 30, 2019 seeking to take their depositions at Plaintiff's counsel's office on September 9, 6, 10, and 11, 2019, respectively. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 8, Exs. A, B, C, D. Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to (a) serve the August 30, 2019 deposition notices with subpoenas; (b) set the depositions at a proper location; or (c) provide reasonable notice for each deposition. Dkt. 48. Defendant also argues the Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions and stay discovery pending class certification and resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to the Court's “wide discretion in controlling discovery” because Plaintiff “has not identified any evidence he needs from the depositions to oppose 3M's motions.” Id. at 22-23.

First, Defendant's argument that subpoenas were required because the four witnesses are not managing agents and “do not come close to being ‘high level employees,’ ” see dkt. 48 at 24 (emphasis in original), contradicts Defendant's own argument in its Motion for Protective Order that these witnesses should not be deposed specifically because they “currently serve as high-level 3M employees.” Dkt. 40-1 at 105. Moreover, Plaintiff has satisfied his “modest” burden to show the individuals are managing agents for purposes of permitting the depositions, particularly in light of their declarations in support of Defendant's Motions to Deny Class Certification and for Summary Judgment setting forth their general responsibilities regarding the matters involved in the litigation. See dkts. 23-2, 23-3, 23-4, 23-5. For example, Jackson declared he has knowledge about the wage and hour practices at all of Defendant's facilities in California, dkt. 23-2, ¶¶ 1, 9-11; Flor declared she offered second meal period waivers to employees and conducted investigations regarding Plaintiff, dkt. 23-4, ¶¶ 5, 21; Reyes declared she offered meal break waivers to employees and updated 3M's meal break policies, dkt. 23-3, ¶¶ 7-8; and Briones declared that if an employee requested a second meal break, he could provide them one, dkt. 23-5, ¶ 9. It appears, therefore, that the witnesses' interests are aligned with Defendant and the witnesses' general responsibilities are related to the subject matter of the litigation. Hence, the Court finds Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones are managing agents for purposes of permitting the depositions and did not require service of subpoenas.

Second, Defendant's argument that the depositions were noticed for an improper location is meritless. Defendant objects to the location of the depositions on the grounds they were not set to occur at a location “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business.” See dkt. 48 at 23-24. However, Plaintiff offered to take Jackson's deposition in Austin, Texas, because it appears that is where he resides and works,[4] and Defendant refused to meet and confer regarding possible alternative dates or locations for any of the depositions. Therefore, the deposition notices appear to comply with the travel limitations set forth in Rule 45(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) (a witness may be commanded to attend a deposition “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”); Dkt. 40-1 at 105, Motion for Protective Order (stating Jackson resides in Austin, Texas, Reyes works at Defendant's facility in Monrovia, California, and Flor and Briones work at Defendant's Oak Hill facility); Sabourian Decl., ¶ 29 (Defendant's Oak Hills facility is 90.4 miles in driving distance from the office of Plaintiff's counsel, where the depositions are noticed, and Defendant's Monrovia facility is 36.8 miles in driving distance from the office of Plaintiff's counsel).

*24 Third, Plaintiff provided reasonable notice for the depositions, which did not request production of documents or preparation to testify regarding anything beyond the witness's personal knowledge. While the seven days' notice for Reyes' deposition is fairly short, particularly because the seven days includes a three-day holiday weekend, courts have found seven days reasonable, and Defendant failed to meet and confer regarding any alternative dates. Moreover, there was at least ten days' notice for each of the other three depositions. See United States v. Levin, No. CR 08-00326 (A) DDP, 2010 WL 2803961, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2010) (finding that while “six to ten days' notice may seem like a relatively short period of time, given the facts of this case the Court concludes that the notice provided is reasonable”); but see Paige, 248 F.R.D. at 275 (finding two weeks was reasonable notice and noting generally “[T]en business days' notice [of a deposition] would seem to be reasonable”).

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff has requested relevant discovery and Defendant has failed to timely request a protective order, the Court finds Defendant's requested stay of all discovery pending class certification and resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is not warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to take up to ten depositions without leave of court regardless of whether he identifies the evidence he “needs” from the depositions, unless Defendant files a motion for protective order before failing to appear. Defendant did not move for a protective order before the party witnesses failed to appear and they were not otherwise excused from appearing for their properly-noticed depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2); Paige, 248 F.R.D. at 275. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks to avoid the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones.

D. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION [DKT. 45] IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 40] IS GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO AVOID THE RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

1. Applicable Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) provides:

In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Once served with the deposition notice under Rule 30(b)(6), the responding party is required to produce one or more witnesses knowledgeable about the subject matter of the noticed topics. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 538 (D. Nev. 2008). The responding party has “a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.” Id. at 539 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

2. Analysis

Here, Defendant argues the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice failed to provide reasonable notice and is overbroad. Dkt. 56 at 21. On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant for September 13, 2019 with 33 matters for examination. Dkt. 45-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. C.

The Court finds nine days' notice is not reasonable for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition seeking 33 matters for examination regarding the entire putative class, where Defendant has approximately eight facilities in California and 1,900 employees throughout the state. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

*25 In addition, Defendant filed the Motion for Protective Order within a reasonable time to the extent it seeks to prevent or limit the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in Section III.A. above, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to show precertification class-wide discovery is warranted. Plaintiff fails to explain how any of the 33 matters for examination is necessary to support Plaintiff's oppositions to Defendant's Motions to Deny Class Certification and for Summary Judgment. See dkt. 45. Hence, Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks to avoid the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

E. REASONABLE EXPENSES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C), “[i]f the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court ... may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). In addition, the Local Rules provide strict procedures with which counsel must comply in bringing or opposing a discovery motion, including requiring a pre-filing conference of counsel and joint stipulation, and specifically provide that “[t]he failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.” L.R. 37-4.

Here, Plaintiff's Motions to Compel are granted in part and denied in part and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part. Thus, neither party succeeded with its motions in their entirety. Moreover, the Court is not pleased with the parties' meet and confer efforts and it appears the majority of the disputes could have been resolved without the involvement of the Court. The Court is particularly troubled by the parties' meet and confer efforts regarding the depositions. Plaintiff's argument that Defendant failed to meet and confer regarding the Motions to Compel because Defendant was seeking to meet and confer regarding the Motion for Protective Order is not well taken. It is, therefore, apparent neither party participated in adequate meet and confer efforts on any of the motions that are the subject of this Order. Hence, the parties' requests for sanctions are DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall serve the following as limited above:

(a) Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 15, 18, and 19;

(b) Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 29-30 as well as any responsive documents; and

(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer to agree on dates for the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones to occur within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJDUICE.

(4) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.

(5) The parties' requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Footnotes

[1]

Defendant argues Plaintiff “admitted at his deposition that his claims are either false or based on confusion or a misunderstanding on his part.” See, e.g., dkt. 28 at 20. While Plaintiff appears to have admitted that, as to him, his claim that Defendant failed to maintain copies of his wage statements, time records, personnel file, and record of payroll deductions is false and that Plaintiff did not understand his wage statements, dkt. 23-8, Plaintiff Dep. at 302:10-303:15, 303:17-23, 305:14-23, the Court notes Plaintiff's counsel consistently objected to the form of the questions at Plaintiff's deposition. See id. More importantly, Plaintiff's admission that he did not understand his wage statements or the meal and rest break policies does not resolve the legal questions regarding whether wage and labor code violations occurred.

[2]

The Court notes Defendant's initial disclosures and interrogatory responses state Reyes, Flor, and Briones can be contacted through Defendant's counsel. See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. D; Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. FF.

[3]

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections. Dkts. 47, 58, 62. The Objections are Overruled as moot. The Court has independently considered the admissibility of the evidence underlying both parties' papers and has not considered facts that are irrelevant or based upon inadmissible evidence.

[4]

The Court notes Jackson does not state where he resides or works in his declaration. See dkt. 23-2. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff's willingness to depose Jackson in Texas and Defendant's failure to meet and confer on the subject of Jackson's deposition, the Court finds the location set forth in the deposition does not render the notice of deposition unenforceable.

Holloway v. 3M Co.

Citation: 2019 WL 7172600 (C.D. Cal. 2019)

Summary: The Court noted that Plaintiff requested relevant discovery and Defendant failed to timely request a protective order. The Court found that Defendant's requested stay of all discovery pending class certification and resolution of the Motion for Summary Judgment was not warranted.

Court: United States District Court, C.D. California

Date decided: October 31, 2019

Judge: Kato, Kenly Kiya

Jason Holloway v. 3M Company Case No. EDCV19-708-JAK (KKx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed October 31, 2019 Counsel Kayvon Sabourian, Launa Adolph, Matthew John Matern, Matern Law Group PC, Manhattan Beach, CA, for Jason Holloway. Dessislava N. Day, Maria C. Roberts, Green and Roberts, San Diego, CA, for 3M Company. Kato, Kenly Kiya, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses [Dkt. 27]; (2) Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions [Dkt. 39]; (3) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 40]; and (4) Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition [Dkt. 45] *1 On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Jason Holloway (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant 3M Company (“Defendant”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 27, Mot. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions and for Sanctions, dkt. 39, and Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order, dkt. 40. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (“Rule 30(b)(6)”). Dkt. 45. For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions; (3) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for Protective Order; (4) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition; and (5) DENIES the parties' requests for sanctions. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND This case arises out of Defendant's alleged violation of Plaintiff's rights under California labor and wage laws. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee at Defendant's Oak Hills facility and currently works as a “compounding MCO” on the production floor. Dkt. 23-8, Plaintiff Dep. at 83:12-84:11. On March 14, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Class Action Complaint against Defendant in San Bernardino Superior Court. Id. On April 18, 2019, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Dkt. 1. On April 25, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer. Dkt. 6. On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff served a set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission on Defendant. Dkt. 28-1, Declaration of Kayvon Sabourian (“Sabourian Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exs. A, B, C. On June 19, 2019, Defendant served Responses to the Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. Id., ¶ 4, Exs. D, E, F. In addition, Defendant produced 1,086 pages of documents, “including all of [Plaintiff]'s wage statements and time records dating [back] to March 2015, all of his personnel records, all job descriptions, disciplinary documents, leave of absence records, all relevant 3M policies, its handbook, compensation guides, training materials, and records related to the establishment of the alternative workweek.” Dkt. 29, Declaration of Maria C. Roberts (“Roberts Decl.”), ¶ 16. On June 26, 2019, the Court vacated the Local Rule deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. Dkt. 12. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant's counsel a letter requesting Defendant amend and supplement its responses to the written discovery requests and participate in a conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 37-1. Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. G. On July 12, 2019, the Court approved the parties' Stipulated Protective Order to facilitate discovery. Dkt. 16. On July 15, 2019, counsel for both parties participated in a conference of counsel by telephone regarding Defendant's responses to the written discovery requests, but were unable to resolve any disputes. Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 6. *2 On July 26, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a deadline to file a motion for class certification of October 14, 2019, non-expert discovery cut-off of March 13, 2020, and a deadline to file all motions (including discovery motions) of April 24, 2020. Dkt. 17. On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff was deposed by Defendant.[1] Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on behalf of himself and “all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant[ ] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of the action and ending at the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment.” Dkt. 21 at ¶ 4. The FAC sets forth the following claims: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (5) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (6) Failure to Maintain Required Records; (7) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; (8) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices; and (9) Representative Action for Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Id. On August 29, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 22. On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Order Denying Class Certification as to All Claims. Dkt. 23. In support of the Motion for Order Denying Class Certification, Defendant filed the following declarations: (1) Declaration of Brian Jackson (“Jackson”), Regional Human Resources Manager, dkt. 23-2; (2) Declaration of Hilda Reyes (“Reyes”), Senior Human Resources Manager, dkt. 23-3; (3) Declaration of Hannah Flor (“Flor”), Plant Human Resources Supervisor at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, dkt. 23-4; (4) Declaration of Sal Briones (“Briones”), General Supervisor at Defendant's facility in Oak Hills, California, dkt. 23-5; and (5) Declaration of Maria C. Roberts, Defendant's counsel, dkt. 23-6, as well as an Appendix of Exhibits, which includes fourteen declarations from non-exempt employees of Defendant at its Oak Hills, California plant, dkt. 23-27, Exs. 20 a-n. On August 30, 2019, upon receipt of Defendant's Motion for Order Denying Class Certification, Plaintiff served Notices of Deposition on Defendant seeking to take the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones on September 9, 6, 10, and 11, 2019, respectively. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 8, Exs. A, B, C, D. *3 On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant for September 13, 2019. Dkt. 45-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. C. The Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice sets forth 33 subjects for examination. Id. On September 5, 2019, Defendant served objections to the Notices of Deposition of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 9, Exs., E, F, G, H. On September 5, 2019, upon receipt of Defendant's objections, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel requesting the availability of the witnesses and Defendant's counsel for the four depositions. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. I. On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses with a Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 setting forth the parties' positions. Dkt. 27, Mot.; Dkt. 28, JS. On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel again requesting the availability of the four witnesses for deposition and agreeing to depose Jackson in Austin, Texas, where Jackson works according to Defendant's objections to the notice of his deposition. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. J. On September 10, 2019, Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter stating Plaintiff was required to subpoena Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones, because they are not parties. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. M. On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel in response stating he did not believe subpoenas were required for these witnesses, requesting their availability for depositions and for a conference of counsel, and asking whether Defendant's counsel would accept service on behalf of the witnesses or provide their contact information.[2] Id., ¶ 15, Ex. N. On September 12, 2019, Defendant served objections to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Dkt. 45-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. E. On September 12, 2019, Briones was personally served with a subpoena for his deposition on September 25, 2019. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. Q. On September 13, 2019, Reyes was personally served with a subpoena for her deposition on September 23, 2019, dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. O, and Flor was personally served with a subpoena for her deposition on September 24, 2019, id., ¶ 19, Ex. P. On September 16, 2019, Jackson was personally served with a subpoena for his deposition on September 27, 2019. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. R. On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with copies of the subpoenas for Flor, Reyes, and Briones. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 22, Exs. S, T, U. On September 18, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 31. On September 19, 2019, the parties filed supplemental briefs in connection with the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. Dkt. 34, Def.'s Suppl. Brief; Dkt. 35, Pl.'s Suppl. Brief. On September 20, 2019, Defendant filed a “Response” to Plaintiff's “Improper Citation to New Legal Authority in Support of Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” Dkt. 38. *4 On September 20, 2019, Defendant served objections to the subpoenas served on Jackson, Flor, Reyes, and Briones. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 23, Exs. V, W, X, Y. On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones and for Sanctions, dkt. 39, and Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order to avoid the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones, as well as the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, dkt. 40. On September 27, 2019, Defendant filed a declaration in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions. Dkt. 41. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition, dkt. 45, an Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, dkt. 46, and Evidentiary Objections, dkt. 47. On October 4, 2019, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions. Dkt. 48. On October 4, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the briefing schedules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motions to deny class certification and for summary judgment. Dkt. 49. The Court (1) denied Plaintiff's motion to continue the deadline to oppose the motion for summary judgment; and (2) adopted a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motion to deny class certification continuing the deadlines for Plaintiff's motion and Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion to December 23, 2019. Id. On October 10, 2019, Defendant filed a Reply in support of the Motion for Protective Order, dkt. 55, and an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition, dkt. 56. On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Compel Depositions, dkt. 57, and Evidentiary Objections, dkt. 58. On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(b) Deposition, dkt. 61, and Evidentiary Objections,[3] dkt. 62. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order thus stand submitted. II. LEGAL STANDARD 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 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). *5 “[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper – especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections.” A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (faulting defendant for making “boilerplate objections to almost every single request for production, including broad relevancy objections, objections of ‘overly burdensome and harassing,’ ‘assumes facts not in evidence,’ privacy, and attorney-client privilege/work product protection”). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “The party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections lack merit.” Bluestone Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. C-13-01770 SI (EDL), 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013). In addition, “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery, the discovery requested must also be proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v. City of Fresno, No. 1:16-CV-653 DAD (SAB), 2016 WL 7491634, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) (citing In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)). III. DISCUSSION A. PUTATIVE CLASS-WIDE DISCOVERY IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE AT THIS TIME 1. Applicable Law “Prior to certification of a class action, discovery is generally limited and in the discretion of the court.” Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006). In order to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs must set forth facts that support four requirements: 1. numerosity; 2. common questions of law or fact; 3. typicality of the claims or defenses; and 4. adequacy of the representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see also In re Mego Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000); Manigo v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. CV 16-6722-JFW (PLAx), 2016 WL 9281314, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016). “Although in some cases a district court should allow discovery to aid the determination of whether a class action is maintainable, the plaintiff bears the burden of advancing a prima facie showing that the class action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Absent such a showing, a trial court's refusal to allow class discovery is not an abuse of discretion.” Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985), as amended (Aug. 27, 1985) (citing Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977). “In determining whether to grant discovery the court must consider its need, the time required, and the probability of discovery resolving any factual issue necessary for the determination.... Where the necessary factual issues may be resolved without discovery, it is not required.” Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). 2. Analysis Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct discovery regarding the entire putative class – “all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant[ ] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of the action and ending at the time this action settles or proceeds to final judgment.” Dkt. 21 at ¶ 4. Plaintiff conceded in his deposition that he has no knowledge of operations at any of Defendant's facilities beyond the Oak Hills facility where he worked. See, e.g., dkt. 23-8, Plaintiff Dep. at 126:16-127:7. Plaintiff, thus, seeks to rely upon the declaration of Anthony McCabe in support of his argument that the class is not limited to the Oak Hills facility where Plaintiff worked. Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. J. McCabe worked as a forklift driver at Defendant's Drug Delivery System Division located in Northridge, California from 2010 through July 2018. Id., ¶¶ 3-4. McCabe states during his final year of employment he missed most of his post-meal rest breaks, was not provided a second thirty minute meal break when he “worked shifts of 12 hours or more”, his supervisors interrupted him via walkie-talkie or his personal cell phone during most rest breaks throughout his employment, and his supervisors exclusively communicated with him on his personal cell phone when he made deliveries outside the office without reimbursing him for the costs of using his cellphone. Id., ¶¶ 5-9. In addition, Plaintiff argues his claims that his wage statements did not accurately state the total hours he worked during a pay period, the hours he worked at the shift differential rate, and his overtime shift differential rate are common to all non-exempt employees in California because Defendant's discovery responses state payroll was handled at a centralized location in St. Paul, Minnesota and wage statements were issued on behalf of “USA 3M Company.” Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. D, 5:12-13; Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. W. Plaintiff, therefore, argues precertification discovery must be permitted. Dkt. 28 at 35. *6 Defendant argues discovery should be limited to Plaintiff's claims because a single declaration from a former employee at a different facility is insufficient to show the discovery sought will substantiate Plaintiff's class claims. Dkt. 28 at 36. Defendant further argues Plaintiff has failed to produce a declaration from an Oak Hills employee to suggest other employees within Plaintiff's facility have been treated as alleged in the Complaint. Finally, Defendant contends Plaintiff testified in his deposition “that his claims are either false or were based on his personal confusion.” Id. Defendant also presents the declaration of Jackson, who explains Defendant “operates ten facilities in California, with vastly different operations, which function entirely independent of the others.” Dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 3. Jackson explains the “facilities also have independent management which determines shift schedules and some also set break schedules, while others do not. No two 3M facilities are alike.” Id., ¶ 7. Defendant employs approximately 1,900 employees in California, dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 3, and approximately 55 non-exempt employees at the Oak Hills facility, dkt. 23-5, Briones Decl., ¶ 3. Jackson also states McCabe's “statements about his alleged experience working at Northridge is both contrary to 3M's policies at Northridge and what I understand to be the practices at that plant.” Dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 11. The Court finds class-wide discovery appears disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Speculation is not sufficient to make a prima facie showing as required by Doninger and Mantolete that the class action requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, or that discovery regarding all of Defendant's California facilities is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. See Erami v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. CV-15-7728-PSG (PLAx), 2016 WL 11520703, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016); Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 14-CV-1156 LAB (JLB), 2016 WL 7188231, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (“Absent some factual basis for a plaintiff's claims that defendant's alleged wrongs are class-wide, plaintiffs are not entitled to class-wide discovery; and the plaintiff cannot rely on the bare allegations of the complaint to support class-wide discovery.”). In light of Jackson's declaration explaining the substantial differences between the operations at each facility, one declaration of a former employee at a single other facility, whose personal experience is not consistent with the policies at that facility, does not satisfy Plaintiff's burden to provide persuasive evidence that further discovery is likely to substantiate his class-wide allegations. See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425 (finding that plaintiff's submission of two additional complaints filed against defendant in other locations with similar claims did not “provide a likelihood that discovery measures will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations”). Plaintiff, therefore, fails to submit sufficient evidence to show his experiences, with the possible exception of his wage statements, are class-wide or that further discovery is necessary to substantiate his class claims. Moreover, as to the possible wage statement claims, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show how any of the discovery sought is necessary to resolve any factual issue required to determine class certification. Kamm, 509 F.2d at 210. Hence, Plaintiff's motion to compel class-wide discovery is denied without prejudice as disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). B. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART [DKT. 27] 1. Interrogatories a. Applicable Law *7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories to parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. “The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). b. Interrogatory No. 2 Interrogatory No. 2: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California during the COVERED PERIOD and state the dates YOU operated each business location during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 31. Response: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: Jason Holloway has only worked at the 3M plant located in Oak Hills. 3M presently has 7 other plants in operation in California, which operate independently of one another and are located in Northridge, Irvine (3 plants), Corona, and Monrovia (2 plants). Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the terms YOU and YOUR are improper because they purport to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks to know what facilities Defendant operated in California during the class period. See dkt. 28 at 31-32. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 2 is overbroad is sustained. Nevertheless, because Defendant answered with respect to Defendant's facilities in California, Defendant must do so accurately. In light of Jackson's declaration where he specifically identifies nine plants in California, dkt. 23-2, Jackson Decl., ¶ 5, but states Defendant has ten facilities in California, id., ¶ 3, and Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 2 stating it only operates eight plants in California, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a further response is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall serve a verified supplemental response clarifying how many facilities it operated in California from March 14, 2015 through the present, and where each is located. c. Interrogatory Nos. 3, 9, 19 Interrogatory No. 3: IDENTIFY all supervisory employees in YOUR human resources department and all payroll managers who performed work at for [sic] YOU in the State of California during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 38. Response: Objection. This interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and violates the privacy rights of third persons. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: The Human Resource Managers who have worked at the 3M plant in Oak Hills are Sonia Solace and Hannah Flor, who may be contacted through defense counsel. Payroll services are handled on a centralized basis out of St Paul, Minnesota. Id. *8 Interrogatory No. 9: IDENTIFY each PERSON responsible for reviewing and/or approving COVERED EMPLOYEES' records of hours worked during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, compound, and violates the privacy rights of third persons. This interrogatory also seeks information that is no [sic] relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M's nonexempt employees at the Oak Hills plant, such as Jason Holloway, are required to accurately record all time worked and verify they have done so. The Human Resource Managers who have worked at the 3M plant in Oak Hills are Jen Deters, Sonia Solace and Hannah Flor, who may be contacted through defense counsel. Payroll services are handled on a centralized basis out of St Paul, Minnesota. Id. at 38-39. Interrogatory No. 19: IDENTIFY all of YOUR employees who supervised PLAINTIFF during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. at 39. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence and seeks to violate the privacy rights of third persons. In addition, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: The production line supervisors at the 3M's Oak Hills plant are Sal Briones, Ismael Martinez and Nick Baca. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the terms YOU and YOUR are improper because they purport to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court agrees it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks identification of Defendant's employees. See dkt. 28 at 39. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory Nos. 3, 9, and 19 are overbroad is sustained. Nevertheless, Defendant must provide further responses to Interrogatories 3, 9, and 19. First, Defendant confusingly identifies only two Human Resource Managers in response to Request No. 3, but identifies three Human Resource Managers in response to Interrogatory No. 9. Defendant must reconcile these two responses. Second, Interrogatory No. 9 seeks identification of all persons responsible for reviewing or approving employees' records of hours worked. This request is properly limited to persons responsible for reviewing or approving Plaintiff's records, but Defendant's response only states “payroll services are handled on a centralized basis out of St. Paul, Minnesota.” This response is insufficient. Third, Interrogatory No. 19 seeks information regarding Plaintiff's supervisors since March 14, 2015. However, Defendant's response is vague as to whether the named production line supervisors are the only persons who have supervised Plaintiff since March 14, 2015. Finally, Defendant's objection on the grounds of privacy is sustained in part. If Defendant chooses to respond that persons identified in their responses may be contacted through Defendant's counsel, then Defendant must be willing and authorized to accept service of documents on their behalf. Alternatively, the Court finds the protective order issued in this action will sufficiently protect the third parties' contact information. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatories 3, 9, and 19 is GRANTED IN PART. d. Interrogatory Nos. 4-5 *9 Interrogatory No. 4: IDENTIFY all COVERED EMPLOYEES. Dkt. 28 at 42. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this interrogatory violates the privacy rights of third persons, which 3M is required by law to protect. Id. Interrogatory No. 5: State all job positions held by COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD and, for each job position, describe in detail the job duties and responsibilities. Id. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, compound, conjunctive, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this interrogatory violates the privacy rights of third persons, which 3M is required by law to protect and seeks information that is confidential and proprietary to 3M. Id. at 42-43. For the reasons set forth in Section III.A. above, the Court finds Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 are disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. However, the Court agrees the number of putative class members is relevant to establishing numerosity and Defendant does not appear to have provided Plaintiff with the number of putative class members. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 4 is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 5 is DENIED. Defendant shall provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 4 stating the number of putative class members. e. Interrogatory No. 15 Interrogatory No. 15: State the name of all companies and software programs YOU have used for payroll processing during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 46. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible and compound. This interrogatory also calls for a narrative and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information that is confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the Oak Hills plant, nonexempt employees of 3M record all of their time worked and meal breaks taken through the timekeeping software system in place known as Cybershift. Non-exempt employees are paid through centralized payroll services located in St. Paul, Minnesota based on the time worked, as recorded by the employee. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOU is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. *10 The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding companies and software programs used by Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 39. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 15 is overbroad is sustained. Nevertheless, because Defendant answered with respect to the Oak Hills facility, Defendant must do so accurately. It is not entirely clear from Defendant's response whether Cybershift is also the software used by the centralized payroll services. The Court finds Defendant's confidential and proprietary information is adequately protected by the protective order already issued in this case. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall provide a further response to Interrogatory No. 15 stating the name of all companies and software programs Defendant has used for processing payroll for employees at the Oak Hills facility since March 14, 2015. f. Interrogatory Nos. 16-17 Interrogatory No. 16: IDENTIFY all COVERED EMPLOYEES who filed a wage claim against YOU with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or any other governmental agency within the last five years. Dkt. 28 at 48. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence and seeks to violate the privacy rights of third persons. In addition, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M is unaware of a wage claim made/reported by an employee at the Oak Hills plant in the past five years. Id. at 48-49. Interrogatory No. 17: IDENTIFY all COVERED EMPLOYEES who instituted wage and hour litigation against YOU, including actions in federal and/or state court and administrative proceedings, within the last five years. Id. at 49. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, assumes facts not in evidence and seeks to violate the privacy rights of third persons. In addition, this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M is unaware of any such litigation being filed by an employee of 3M at the Oak Hills plant in the past five years. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOU is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding wage claims and litigation against Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 48-49. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plaint, is sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16-17 is DENIED. g. Interrogatory No. 18 Interrogatory No. 18: State all positions held by PLAINTIFF during his employment with YOU, the job duties and responsibilities of each position, and the dates PLAINTIFF held each position. Dkt. 28 at 52. Response: During his employment with 3M, Jason Holloway has held the position of Compounding Maker Coater Operator and, for a short period of time held the role of lead Compounding Maker Coater Operator. Id. *11 Plaintiff seeks a further response to Interrogatory No. 18 because Defendant has not fully responded with a description of Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities and the dates Plaintiff held each position. Dkt. 28 at 52. The Court finds Defendant has not fully responded to Interrogatory No. 18. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 18 is GRANTED. h. Interrogatory No. 20 Interrogatory No. 20: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California where COVERED EMPLOYEES earned a SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, each position that earned a SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, and the dates when COVERED EMPLOYEES earned a SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL. Dkt. 28 at 53. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. This interrogatory is also improperly compound, conjunctive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the 3M plant in Oak Hills, nonexempt production employees who are assigned to work C and A shifts are eligible to earn shift premium for working those shifts. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 53. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 20 is overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 20, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plant, is sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 20 is DENIED. i. Interrogatory Nos. 22-23 Interrogatory No. 22: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California where COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last twelve (12) hours, each position that worked shifts scheduled to last twelve (12) hours, and the dates when COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last twelve (12) hours. Dkt. 28 at 55. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. This interrogatory is also improperly compound, conjunctive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the 3M plant in Oak Hills, 12 hours shifts are not a regularly scheduled shift for nonexempt employees, but employees may occasionally be required to work shifts that last more than 10 hours, but no more than 12 hours. Holloway worked shifts of between 11 and up to 12 hours on occasion. Id. at 55-56. *12 Interrogatory No. 23: IDENTIFY all of YOUR business locations in the State of California where COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last ten (10) hours, each position that worked shifts scheduled to last ten (10) hours, and the dates when COVERED EMPLOYEES worked shifts scheduled to last ten (10) hours. Id. at 56. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and is unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. This interrogatory is also improperly compound, conjunctive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: At the 3M plant in Oak Hills, 10 hours shifts were a scheduled shift for nonexempt employees for a period of time as part of a legal alternative work week. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 55-56. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory Nos. 22-23 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 22 and 23, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 22-23 is DENIED. j. Interrogatory No. 25 Interrogatory No. 25: STATE the number and amount of MEAL BREAK PREMIUMS and REST BREAK PREMIUMS YOU paid to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 58. Response: Objection. This interrogatory (and the defined terms of “covered employees” and “you”) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unintelligible, and in unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing. In addition, this interrogatory is compound, conjunctive, and calls for an improper compilation of information. This interrogatory also seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, 3M Company responds as follows: It is and has been the policy and regular practice of 3M to provide legally compliant breaks to non-exempt employees such as Jason Holloway, including providing timely, uninterrupted breaks, except when breaks were waived by the employee as permitted by law. If, on occasion, 3M is unable to provide a legally compliant break, then one hour of premium pay is paid. Id. at 58-59. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOU is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. *13 The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 58. Hence, Defendant's objection that Interrogatory No. 25 is overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 25, which Defendant has limited to the Oak Hills plant, is sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 25 is DENIED. 2. Requests for Production a. Applicable Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production of documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. “The party to whom the [Request for Production] is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). The requesting party “is entitled to individualized, complete responses to each of the [Requests for Production] ..., accompanied by production of each of the documents responsive to the request, regardless of whether the documents have already been produced.” Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006). b. Requests for Production Nos. 2-6, 20 Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20 seek production of “[a]ll DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR” policies regarding meal and rest breaks, the payment of minimum and overtime wages, and reimbursement of business expenses “for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.” Dkt. 28 at 60-64. Defendant responded to each request with the following objection: This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Id. at 61-64. Without waiving those objections, Defendant agreed to produce copies of its break policies, policies related to overtime hours, and applicable employment policies “for the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order.” Id. In addition, Defendant stated in response to Request for Production No. 6: “3M does not request or allow nonexempt employees at its Oak Hills plant to incur expenses on its behalf or as part of their employment responsibilities.” Id. at 63. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 60-64. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20 are overbroad is sustained. The Court also finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to Defendant's policies is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20, which are limited to the break and employment policies at the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2-6 and 20 is DENIED. c. Requests for Production Nos. 9-10 *14 Request for Production No. 9: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR employee handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and training materials, for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 75. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of those employment policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant and pertinent to his case, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. Request for Production No. 10: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOU providing an extra hour of compensation to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD who were not provided a meal break or rest period. Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and assumes facts not in evidence. This request seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff and violates the privacy rights of third persons and may also violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: It is 3M's policy and practice to provide nonexempt employees at Oak Hills with breaks in accordance with the law. 3M will produce a copy of its break policies for the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. at 75-76. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the terms YOU and YOUR are improper because they purport to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 75-76. The Court also finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to Defendant's policies is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 9-10 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 9-10, which are limited to copies of the break and employment policies at the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that further discovery “will produce persuasive information substantiating class allegations.” See Mantolete, 767 F.2d at 1425. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 9-10 is DENIED. d. Requests for Production Nos. 11-12 *15 Request for Production No. 11: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to the dates and hours worked by PLAINTIFF during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including but not limited to time cards, handwritten time cards, electronic time cards, meal period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other DOCUMENTS of any form containing responsive information. Dkt. 28 at 80. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a print-out of Jason Holloway's time punches for the pertinent time period. Id. Request for Production No. 12: All payroll records relating to PLAINTIFF, including, without limitation, Year-to-Date earnings, Year-End Summaries, and pay stubs reflecting wages and other forms of remuneration/compensation paid at any time during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, is unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive, calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce copies of the wage statements issued by 3M to Jason Holloway for the pertinent time period. Id. at 80-81. The Court finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to dates and hours worked by Plaintiff is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Defendant has produced Plaintiff's time records and wage statements from March 2015 to June 19, 2019. Dkt. 29, Roberts Decl., ¶¶ 20-21. The Court finds Defendant has sufficiently responded to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 is DENIED. e. Requests for Production Nos. 13-14 Request for Production No. 13: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to the dates and hours worked by all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including but not limited to time cards, handwritten time cards, electronic time cards, meal period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other DOCUMENTS of any form containing responsive information. Dkt. 28 at 82. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and is improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce Jason Holloway's time punch records for the pertinent time period. Id. *16 Request for Production No. 14: All payroll records relating to YOUR COVERED EMPLOYEES, including, without limitation, Year-to-Date earnings, Year-End Summaries, and pay stubs reflecting wages and other forms of remuneration/compensation paid at any time during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and is improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a print-out of Jason Holloway's time punches for the pertinent time period. Id. at 82-83. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 82-83. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 13-14 are overbroad is sustained. The Court also finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to dates and hours worked by the putative class is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 13 and 14 is DENIED. f. Request for Production No. 15 Request for Production No. 15: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to work schedules maintained by YOU of all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 88. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and is improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company respond as follows: 3M will produce a print-out Jason Holloway's time punches for the pertinent time period which reflects the shifts he worked and will also produce copies of any work schedules located related to the assigned shifts worked by Jason Holloway for the pertinent time period. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. *17 The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 88. The Court finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to work schedules of the putative class is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Request for Production No. 15 is overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 15, which is limited Plaintiff, is sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production No. 15 is DENIED. g. Requests for Production Nos. 17-18 Request for Production No. 17: All DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate to YOUR time keeping procedures and payroll software for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 91. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. This request also seeks information that is confidential and proprietary to 3M. Id. Request for Production No. 18: All DOCUMENTS (including but not limited to job descriptions, lists of job duties, classified ads, job opening notifications, and/or lists of essential job functions) which discuss, define or describe the job duties, qualifications, requirements, responsibilities, and/or essential job functions for each and all of the COVERED POSITIONS during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. This request violates the privacy rights of third persons and is improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. The request seeks documents that are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of job descriptions located for the position held by Jason Holloway. Id. at 91-92. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOUR is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 91. The Court finds production of “all DOCUMENTS which discuss, describe, evidence, constitute, refer or relate” to time keeping procedures and payroll software is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. The Court finds the requests for documents regarding all putative class members and the “job descriptions, lists of job duties, classified ads, job opening notifications, and/or lists of essential job functions” for each of their jobs is disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 17-18 are overbroad is sustained. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 18 is DENIED. h. Request for Production No. 19 *18 Request for Production No. 19: All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to memoranda, charts, diagrams, lists, directories and maps, which show or describe the organizational and/or management structure of YOU during the COVERED PERIOD. Dkt. 28 at 94. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M does not have a specific organizational chart for Oak Hills. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the term YOU is improper because it purports to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 94. The Court also finds production of “All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to memoranda, charts, diagrams, lists, directories and maps, which show or describe the organizational and/or management structure” is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Request for Production No. 19 is overbroad is sustained. Defendant has sufficiently responded to Request for Production No. 19. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking an organizational chart for Defendant, Plaintiff has failed to explain the relevance of such a chart to Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production No. 19 is DENIED. i. Requests for Production Nos. 21-25 Request for Production No. 21: All DOCUMENTS reflecting or evidencing training sessions regarding wage and hour policies that YOU required COVERED EMPLOYEES to attend in connection with their employment with YOU at any time during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. at 94-95. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce copy of the employment policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant and pertinent to this case, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. 3M will also search for and produce documents related to Jason Holloway's receipt and/or training of its policies. Id. at 95. *19 Request for Production No. 22: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating or referring to YOUR policies and procedures pertaining to employee waivers of meal periods and rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD. Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of its break policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. at 95-96. Request for Production No. 23: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating or referring to waivers of meal periods or rest periods by COVERED EMPLOYEES. Id. at 96. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of its break policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. Request for Production No. 24: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to settlement agreements obtained subsequent to the filing of the COMPLAINT from COVERED EMPLOYEES for any of the claims alleged in the COMPLAINT. Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: No such agreements have been entered into with current former Oak Hills employees. Id. at 96-97. *20 Request for Production No. 25: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to the provision of a second meal period to COVERED EMPLOYEES who worked more than ten (10) hours in a day. Id. at 97. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, am[biguous,] overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. To the extent the request seeks 3M's internal policies and related communications, those documents are confidential and proprietary to 3M. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of its break policies in effect at the Oak Hills plant, if an acceptable stipulated protective order is in place and subject to such a protective order. Id. Defendant objects to class-wide discovery, discussed above, and that the terms YOU and YOUR are improper because they purport to include not only Defendant, but also “each of its affiliates, attorneys, accountants, divisions, subdivisions, predecessors, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and all persons acting or purporting to act on DEFENDANT'S behalf.” See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. A. The Court finds it is apparent Plaintiff is not seeking information regarding other persons or entities, but rather seeks information regarding Defendant. See dkt. 28 at 94-97. The Court also finds production of “All DOCUMENTS, constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to” policies, waivers, settlement agreements, or second meal periods is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. Hence, Defendant's objection that Requests for Production Nos. 21-25 are overbroad is sustained. The Court finds Defendant's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 21-25, which are limited to the Oak Hills plant, are sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 21-25 is DENIED. j. Request for Production No. 26 Request for Production No. 26: All DOCUMENTS constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to the payment to COVERED EMPLOYEES of overtime wages based on a regular rate of pay which incorporated the payment of SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS. Dkt. 28 at 103. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. In addition, this request violates the privacy rights of third persons and may violate the attorney-client and work-product privileges. The request is also improperly compound and conjunctive and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copies of wage statements issued to Jason Holloway for the pertinent time period, which reflect that his overtime compensation factored in shift premium earned in those workweeks in which Holloway was both paid shift premium and worked overtime. Id. at 103-04. *21 Defendant's objections to class-wide discovery are discussed above. The Court finds production of “All DOCUMENTS, constituting, evidencing, relating, or referring to” payment of overtime wages to the entire purported class is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case at this time. The Court finds Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 26, which is limited to Plaintiff, is sufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production No. 26 is DENIED. k. Request for Production No. 27 Request for Production No. 27: All DOCUMENTS bearing the signature of PLAINTIFF. Dkt. 28 at 107. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. This request also seeks documents that are confidential and proprietary to 3M and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Without waiving said objections, Defendant 3M Company responds as follows: 3M will produce a copy of Jason Holloway's personnel and employment records and employee policy training records it locates that contain his signature. Id. Plaintiff has not identified what further documents it seeks beyond Plaintiff's personnel and employment records that would be relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Dkt. 28 at 107. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production No. 27 is DENIED. l. Requests for Production Nos. 29-30 Request for Production No. 29: All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to PLAINTIFF'S Interrogatories (Set One). Dkt. 28 at 109. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. This request assumes facts not in evidence and seeks documents that may violate the privacy rights of third persons and the attorney-client and work-product privileges. This request seeks documents that are confidential and proprietary to 3M and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Id. Request for Production No. 30: All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to PLAINTIFF'S Requests for Admission (Set One). Id. Response: Objection. This request (and the defined terms) is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, harassing and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as related to the claims of Plaintiff. This request assumes facts not in evidence and seeks documents that may violate the privacy rights of third persons and the attorney-client and work-product privileges. This request seeks documents that are confidential and proprietary to 3M and calls for speculation as to those included in the definition of “you,” and is unintelligible. Id. Defendant's objections are overruled. Defendant cites no authority for its position that it should not be compelled to produce documents identified in its responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories or Requests for Admission. If, as Defendant argues, Defendant does not identify any documents in its responses, see dkt. 28 at 110, it is not unduly burdensome or harassing to require Defendant to say so in its responses to Requests for Production Nos. 29-30. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 29-30 is GRANTED. 3. Requests for Admission a. Applicable Law *22 “A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides: If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). b. Analysis Plaintiff seeks further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-13, 16-18, and 21-28. Dkt. 28 at 111-23. For the reasons set forth in Section III.A. above, Defendant's responses are appropriately limited to Plaintiff and/or the Oak Hills facility. However, Defendant's responses fail to specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest as required by Rule 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to his Requests for Admission Nos. 1-13, 16-18, and 21-28 is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant's objections as to the scope of its responses, as limited to Plaintiff and/or the Oak Hills plant, are sustained, but Defendant must serve supplemental responses admitting or denying as much as possible. C. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS [DKT. 39] IS GRANTED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 40] IS DENIED IN PART TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO AVOID THE DEPOSITIONS OF JACKSON, REYES, FLOR, AND BRIONES 1. Applicable Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 governs depositions by oral examination. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Rule 30(a)(1) provides that, subject to certain limitations, “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). Rule 30(b)(1) provides that a party may request the deposition of another party to the litigation by serving a notice upon that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). A party's failure to appear at that party's deposition “is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2); Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “However, a corporate employee or agent who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice.” United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd., 159 F.R.D. 408, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Such employees must be subpoenaed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. “The term ‘managing agent’ should not be given too literal an interpretation but rather should depend largely on whether the interests of the individual involved are identified with those of his principal and on the nature of his ‘functions, responsibilities and authority ... respecting the subject matter of the litigation.’ ” Tomingas v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 45 F.R.D. 94, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) (emphasis in original) (finding “although [witnesses] may not be ‘managing agents’ in the course of their everyday duties for the defendant corporation, they are ‘managing agents’ for the purpose of giving testimony regarding the accident investigation, a most relevant aspect of this litigation”). In determining whether a corporate employee will be determined to be a “managing agent,” courts consider the following factors: “(1) whether the individual is invested with general powers allowing him to exercise judgment and discretion in corporate matters; (2) whether the individual can be relied upon to give testimony, at his employer's request, in response to the demand of the examining party; (3) whether any person or persons are employed by the corporate employer in positions of higher authority than the individual designated in the area regarding which information is sought by the examination; (4) the general responsibilities of the individual respecting the matters involved in the litigation.” Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. Enhanced Athlete, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01491-TLN (KJN), 2018 WL 888972, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) (quoting Calderon v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 629, 632 (D. Idaho 2012), aff'd, 290 F.R.D. 508 (D. Idaho 2013)). Other factors include “whether the employee can be depended upon to carry out the employer's directions, and ... whether the individual can be expected to identify him or herself with the interests of the corporation as opposed to the interests of the opposing party.” Id. *23 Moreover, “while the burden is on the party seeking the discovery to prove that the potential witness is a managing agent of the corporation, this burden is a modest one, and at least at the discovery stage, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the party seeking the depositions.... Thus, courts have concluded that if there is at least a ‘close question’ as to the managing agent status of a potential witness, doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing the deposition, with the final determination of whether the agent has the ability to bind the corporation to be left for trial.” Id. (quoting Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 632-33). 2. Analysis Plaintiff seeks to compel the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones on the grounds they failed to appear for their depositions pursuant to the notices of deposition served on August 30, 2019, or, alternatively, they failed to comply with the subpoenas served on September 12, 13, and 16, 2019. Plaintiff noticed the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones on August 30, 2019 seeking to take their depositions at Plaintiff's counsel's office on September 9, 6, 10, and 11, 2019, respectively. Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 8, Exs. A, B, C, D. Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to (a) serve the August 30, 2019 deposition notices with subpoenas; (b) set the depositions at a proper location; or (c) provide reasonable notice for each deposition. Dkt. 48. Defendant also argues the Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions and stay discovery pending class certification and resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to the Court's “wide discretion in controlling discovery” because Plaintiff “has not identified any evidence he needs from the depositions to oppose 3M's motions.” Id. at 22-23. First, Defendant's argument that subpoenas were required because the four witnesses are not managing agents and “do not come close to being ‘high level employees,’ ” see dkt. 48 at 24 (emphasis in original), contradicts Defendant's own argument in its Motion for Protective Order that these witnesses should not be deposed specifically because they “currently serve as high-level 3M employees.” Dkt. 40-1 at 105. Moreover, Plaintiff has satisfied his “modest” burden to show the individuals are managing agents for purposes of permitting the depositions, particularly in light of their declarations in support of Defendant's Motions to Deny Class Certification and for Summary Judgment setting forth their general responsibilities regarding the matters involved in the litigation. See dkts. 23-2, 23-3, 23-4, 23-5. For example, Jackson declared he has knowledge about the wage and hour practices at all of Defendant's facilities in California, dkt. 23-2, ¶¶ 1, 9-11; Flor declared she offered second meal period waivers to employees and conducted investigations regarding Plaintiff, dkt. 23-4, ¶¶ 5, 21; Reyes declared she offered meal break waivers to employees and updated 3M's meal break policies, dkt. 23-3, ¶¶ 7-8; and Briones declared that if an employee requested a second meal break, he could provide them one, dkt. 23-5, ¶ 9. It appears, therefore, that the witnesses' interests are aligned with Defendant and the witnesses' general responsibilities are related to the subject matter of the litigation. Hence, the Court finds Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones are managing agents for purposes of permitting the depositions and did not require service of subpoenas. Second, Defendant's argument that the depositions were noticed for an improper location is meritless. Defendant objects to the location of the depositions on the grounds they were not set to occur at a location “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business.” See dkt. 48 at 23-24. However, Plaintiff offered to take Jackson's deposition in Austin, Texas, because it appears that is where he resides and works,[4] and Defendant refused to meet and confer regarding possible alternative dates or locations for any of the depositions. Therefore, the deposition notices appear to comply with the travel limitations set forth in Rule 45(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) (a witness may be commanded to attend a deposition “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”); Dkt. 40-1 at 105, Motion for Protective Order (stating Jackson resides in Austin, Texas, Reyes works at Defendant's facility in Monrovia, California, and Flor and Briones work at Defendant's Oak Hill facility); Sabourian Decl., ¶ 29 (Defendant's Oak Hills facility is 90.4 miles in driving distance from the office of Plaintiff's counsel, where the depositions are noticed, and Defendant's Monrovia facility is 36.8 miles in driving distance from the office of Plaintiff's counsel). *24 Third, Plaintiff provided reasonable notice for the depositions, which did not request production of documents or preparation to testify regarding anything beyond the witness's personal knowledge. While the seven days' notice for Reyes' deposition is fairly short, particularly because the seven days includes a three-day holiday weekend, courts have found seven days reasonable, and Defendant failed to meet and confer regarding any alternative dates. Moreover, there was at least ten days' notice for each of the other three depositions. See United States v. Levin, No. CR 08-00326 (A) DDP, 2010 WL 2803961, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2010) (finding that while “six to ten days' notice may seem like a relatively short period of time, given the facts of this case the Court concludes that the notice provided is reasonable”); but see Paige, 248 F.R.D. at 275 (finding two weeks was reasonable notice and noting generally “[T]en business days' notice [of a deposition] would seem to be reasonable”). Finally, to the extent Plaintiff has requested relevant discovery and Defendant has failed to timely request a protective order, the Court finds Defendant's requested stay of all discovery pending class certification and resolution of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is not warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to take up to ten depositions without leave of court regardless of whether he identifies the evidence he “needs” from the depositions, unless Defendant files a motion for protective order before failing to appear. Defendant did not move for a protective order before the party witnesses failed to appear and they were not otherwise excused from appearing for their properly-noticed depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2); Paige, 248 F.R.D. at 275. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks to avoid the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones. D. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION [DKT. 45] IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 40] IS GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO AVOID THE RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION 1. Applicable Law Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) provides: In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Once served with the deposition notice under Rule 30(b)(6), the responding party is required to produce one or more witnesses knowledgeable about the subject matter of the noticed topics. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534, 538 (D. Nev. 2008). The responding party has “a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.” Id. at 539 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 2. Analysis Here, Defendant argues the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice failed to provide reasonable notice and is overbroad. Dkt. 56 at 21. On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant for September 13, 2019 with 33 matters for examination. Dkt. 45-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. C. The Court finds nine days' notice is not reasonable for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition seeking 33 matters for examination regarding the entire putative class, where Defendant has approximately eight facilities in California and 1,900 employees throughout the state. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. *25 In addition, Defendant filed the Motion for Protective Order within a reasonable time to the extent it seeks to prevent or limit the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in Section III.A. above, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden to show precertification class-wide discovery is warranted. Plaintiff fails to explain how any of the 33 matters for examination is necessary to support Plaintiff's oppositions to Defendant's Motions to Deny Class Certification and for Summary Judgment. See dkt. 45. Hence, Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks to avoid the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. E. REASONABLE EXPENSES Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C), “[i]f the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court ... may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). In addition, the Local Rules provide strict procedures with which counsel must comply in bringing or opposing a discovery motion, including requiring a pre-filing conference of counsel and joint stipulation, and specifically provide that “[t]he failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.” L.R. 37-4. Here, Plaintiff's Motions to Compel are granted in part and denied in part and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part. Thus, neither party succeeded with its motions in their entirety. Moreover, the Court is not pleased with the parties' meet and confer efforts and it appears the majority of the disputes could have been resolved without the involvement of the Court. The Court is particularly troubled by the parties' meet and confer efforts regarding the depositions. Plaintiff's argument that Defendant failed to meet and confer regarding the Motions to Compel because Defendant was seeking to meet and confer regarding the Motion for Protective Order is not well taken. It is, therefore, apparent neither party participated in adequate meet and confer efforts on any of the motions that are the subject of this Order. Hence, the parties' requests for sanctions are DENIED. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall serve the following as limited above: (a) Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 15, 18, and 19; (b) Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 29-30 as well as any responsive documents; and (c) Supplemental Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-13, 16-18, and 21-28. (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall meet and confer to agree on dates for the depositions of Jackson, Reyes, Flor, and Briones to occur within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJDUICE. (4) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. (5) The parties' requests for sanctions are DENIED. Footnotes [1] Defendant argues Plaintiff “admitted at his deposition that his claims are either false or based on confusion or a misunderstanding on his part.” See, e.g., dkt. 28 at 20. While Plaintiff appears to have admitted that, as to him, his claim that Defendant failed to maintain copies of his wage statements, time records, personnel file, and record of payroll deductions is false and that Plaintiff did not understand his wage statements, dkt. 23-8, Plaintiff Dep. at 302:10-303:15, 303:17-23, 305:14-23, the Court notes Plaintiff's counsel consistently objected to the form of the questions at Plaintiff's deposition. See id. More importantly, Plaintiff's admission that he did not understand his wage statements or the meal and rest break policies does not resolve the legal questions regarding whether wage and labor code violations occurred. [2] The Court notes Defendant's initial disclosures and interrogatory responses state Reyes, Flor, and Briones can be contacted through Defendant's counsel. See Dkt. 28-1, Sabourian Decl., Ex. D; Dkt. 39-1, Sabourian Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. FF. [3] The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections. Dkts. 47, 58, 62. The Objections are Overruled as moot. The Court has independently considered the admissibility of the evidence underlying both parties' papers and has not considered facts that are irrelevant or based upon inadmissible evidence. [4] The Court notes Jackson does not state where he resides or works in his declaration. See dkt. 23-2. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff's willingness to depose Jackson in Texas and Defendant's failure to meet and confer on the subject of Jackson's deposition, the Court finds the location set forth in the deposition does not render the notice of deposition unenforceable.