On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs Juana Olivos Valdez and Danillie Willie filed a Class Action & Representative Action Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against GHLLC, which such Defendant removed to federal court on February 18, 2019, based upon the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (Docket No. 1).
*2 On February 18, 2019, GHLLC filed its Certification of Interested Entities or Persons, identifying five interested persons/entities: Plaintiffs Valdez and Willie, itself (GHLLC), GHI, and Alexandria Care Center, LLC (“ACC”). (Docket No. 3; Sabourian Decl. ¶ 21; Sabourian Ex. Z).
On October 8, 2019, the District Judge issued its Case Management and Scheduling Order Re Jury Trial (“Initial Scheduling Order”) which, among other things, set December 19, 2019 as the deadline to amend. (Docket No. 27).
On December 12, 2019 – a week before the December 19, 2019 deadline to amend – the District Judge granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Docket Nos. 27, 34).
On December 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Valdez and Willie, and a new third Plaintiff, Patricia Theus, filed the operative First Amended Class Action & Representative Action Complaint (“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”) against the Genesis Defendants (GHLLC, GHI, and GAS), ACC, The Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills (“RCBH”); and Doe Defendants 1-100, asserting multiple California state law employment claims: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; (8) unfair and unlawful business practices; and (9) a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. (Docket No. 35; Sabourian Decl. ¶ 23; Sabourian Ex. BB).
[2]The First Amended Complaint alleges that (1) Plaintiff Valdez formerly worked as a non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant for GHLLC, GHI, GAS and/or ACC;
[3] (2) Plaintiff Willie formerly worked as a non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant for GHLLC, GHI, and/or GAS;
[4] and (3) Plaintiff Theus formerly worked as a non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant for GHLLC, GHI, GAS and/or RCBH.
[5] (FAC ¶¶ 3-5). They sue on behalf of themselves and the putative class, i.e., all current and former non-exempt employees of “DEFENDANTS”
[6] in the State of California at any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action (i.e., September 20, 2014) and ending at the time of class certification. (FAC ¶ 7). The First Amended Complaint further alleges that “DEFENDANTS” were the joint employers of Plaintiffs and the putative class members, that “[o]ne or more of the DEFENDANTS maintained sufficient control over its subsidiaries, affiliates, and business partners such that they could and/or did affect the wages, hours, and working conditions” of the putative class members (FAC ¶ 14), that “DEFENDANTS were the alter egos, divisions, affiliates, integrated enterprises, joint employers, subsidiaries, parents, principals, related entities, co-conspirators, authorized agents, partners, joint venturers, and/or guarantors, actual or ostensible, of each other[,]” and that “[e]ach Defendant was completely dominated by his, her or its co-Defendant, and each was the alter ego of the other[ ]” (FAC ¶ 15).
*3 On January 7, 2020 and February 10, 2020, the Genesis Defendants, ACC and RCBH filed their Answers. (Docket Nos. 39, 41).
On April 23, 2020, the District Judge issued an Order to Modify Scheduling Order, approving the parties' stipulation. (Docket Nos. 45, 46).
[7]On December 16, 2020, the Court vacated its April 23, 2020 Order/amended schedule of pretrial and trial dates until further notice after resolution of a class certification motion, and set February 26, 2021, as the deadline by which Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification in this case, with April 2, 2021 as the last hearing date on that motion. (Docket No. 63; Sabourian Decl. ¶ 28; Sabourian Ex. GG).
On February 19, 2021, the Magistrate Judge, with the authorization of the District Judge, vacated the February 26, 2021 deadline to file a motion for class certification and the April 2, 2021 deadline for the hearing of such motion, and, in pertinent part, directed Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification two weeks after (a) this Court's denial of the Motion to Compel if such motion is denied in its entirety; or (b) Defendants' deadline to produce items called for by any order of the Court granting/granting in part the Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 79). The Court further directed that the motion for class certification be noticed for hearing before the District Judge (who hears civil motions on Fridays at 9:30 a.m.) on a date which affords Defendants at least thirty (30) days to file an opposition. (Docket No. 79).
On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff Valdez served three Interrogatories and Plaintiffs Valdez and Willie served thirty Requests for the Production of Documents on the then sole Defendant GHLLC (collectively, “First Set of Discovery Requests”). (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 3; Sabourian Exs. A, B).
In September 2019, Defendant GHLLC and Plaintiffs Valdez and Willie exchanged initial disclosures. (Graham Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3; Graham Exs. A, B). GHLLC's initial disclosures identified Valdez, Willie, Michael Berg, ACC executive director Glenn Padama, and Bay Crest executive director Gabriela Martinez as individuals who may have discoverable information in support of its defenses and/or to refute Plaintiffs' allegations. (Graham Ex. A). Plaintiffs' initial disclosures identified Valdez, Willie, Theus, Holly Jenner (a general manager/instructor for GHLLC), three supervisors/nurses for GHLLC – Evelyn [Last Name Unknown (“LNU”)], Florence LNU, and Diana LNU – and one trainer for GHLLC, Kristie LNU, as individuals who they currently believed were likely to have discoverable information which Plaintiffs may use to support their claims. (Graham Ex. B).
On October 14, 2019, GHLLC served responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests which consisted of objections and a statement that such Defendant did not employ Plaintiffs or any other person in California at anytime during the relevant time period. (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 4; Sabourian Exs. C, D).
[8]*4 As noted above, on December 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint, adding Theus as a Plaintiff and adding GHI, GAS, ACC and RCBH as Defendants. (Docket No. 35; Sabourian Decl. ¶ 23; Sabourian Ex. BB).
On March 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Valdez, Willie and Theus served twenty Interrogatories each and thirty Requests for Production each on GHI and GAS (collectively, “Second Sets of Discovery Requests”). (Sabourian Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7;
[9] Sabourian Exs. G-L).
On or about March 26, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel sought to meet and confer regarding GHLLC's October 14, 2019 responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests which had been propounded and responded to prior to the filing of the First Amended Complaint. (Graham Decl. ¶ 4; Graham Ex. C).
On April 27, 2020 – after the parties had telephonically conferred on April 13, 2020 – GHLLC served supplemental responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests, essentially consisting of objections and a statement that such Defendant did not have responsive documents or information. (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 5; Sabourian Exs. E, F; Graham Decl. ¶ 5).
On June 9, 2020, GHI and GAS served their responses to the Second Sets of Discovery Requests, which consisted of objections and a statement that such Defendants did not employ Plaintiffs or any other person in California, essentially conveying they assertedly had no responsive information or documents. (Sabourian Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9; Sabourian Exs. M-R).
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel sought to meet and confer regarding the “Genesis Entities’ ” discovery responses. (Graham Decl. ¶ 6; Graham Ex. D).
On August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs conducted a deposition of the Genesis Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee Michael T. Berg, Deputy General Counsel for GAS. (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 10; Sabourian Ex. S; Graham Decl. ¶ 7; Graham Ex. E). Berg testified regarding the corporate structure of the Genesis Defendants to the following effect: Defendant GHI is a holding company and the “ultimate parent company” of hundreds of subsidiaries that provide health care services.
[10] It owns equity of operators of nursing homes and providers of other health care services.
[11] It does not operate anything itself and it does not have any employees. It has a subsidiary called Sunset Healthcare Group, Inc which owns FC-Gen Operations Investment, LLC, which owns Gen Operations I, LLC, which owns Gen Operations II, LLC, which owns defendant GHLLC.
[12] GHLLC is thus an indirect subsidiary of GHI and GHI does not itself own the membership interests of GHLLC. GHLLC owns Genesis Holdings, LLC, which owns GAS.
[13] GAS is effectively the provider of back office services to subsidiaries of GHI that operate nursing homes or other types of health care services, such as services for taxes, legal matters, payroll,
[14] human resources (e.g., drafting/preparation of employee handbooks), accounts payable, treasury, risk management, purchasing, and benefits. GAS provides such administrative services under administrative service agreements with individual health care facilities but it does not employ any people who work within individual health care facilities. GAS had/has an administrative services agreement with Defendant ACC pursuant to which it provides/would provide back office services such as payroll, accounts payable, tax, legal, etc.
[15] It helped/would have helped ACC draft policies and procedures, including employment and wage and hour policies.
[16] ACC is owned by Summit Care, LLC, which is owned by Summit Care Parent, LLC which is owned by Skilled Healthcare, LLC, which is owned by defendant GHLLC. Thus, ACC is indirectly owned by GHLLC. (Sabourian Ex. S; Graham Ex. E).
*5 On August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed counsel for the Genesis Defendants, following up on the aforementioned August 17, 2020 communication. (Graham Decl. ¶ 8; Graham Ex. F). On August 27, 2020 – as it was the view of the Genesis Defendants' counsel that the topics in issue had largely been covered during Berg's deposition – such counsel responded with an inquiry as to whether any issues still remained after Berg's deposition and if so, what they were. (Graham Decl. ¶ 8; Graham Ex. F). Plaintiffs' counsel assertedly did not respond to such communication. (Graham Decl. ¶ 8).
On September 15, 2020, the Court issued a Protective Order to govern discovery in this matter. (Docket No. 49; Sabourian Decl. ¶ 24; Sabourian Ex. DD).
On November 2, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a Local Rule 37-1 letter to counsel for the Genesis Defendants, essentially requesting that such Defendants amend/supplement their discovery responses and participate in a meet and confer session. (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 11).
On November 12, 2020, during a telephonic meet and confer session, counsel for the Genesis Defendants essentially conveyed that such Defendants did not believe it was necessary to supplement/ further supplement their responses to the First and Second Sets of Discovery Requests. (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 12; Graham Decl. ¶ 9).
[17] On November 25, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a follow-up letter to opposing counsel. (Sabourian Decl. 13; Sabourian Ex. U).
Between December 3, 2020 and December 10, 2020, the parties further conferred and ultimately, counsel for the Genesis Defendants essentially conveyed that GHI and GAS would supplement their responses to the Second Sets of Discovery Requests in the same way that GHLLC had supplemented its responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests.
[18] (Sabourian Decl. ¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18; Sabourian Exs. V-X).
The Genesis Defendants assertedly have not denied in their discovery responses or during the parties' meet and confer efforts that any of the requested information/documents are available to them, or, with the exception of RCBH, that they do not own or control the entities that operate the Genesis healthcare facilities in California. (Sabourian Decl. ¶ 19).
[19]As the parties were unable to resolve their disputes regarding the First and Second Sets of Discovery Requests, the Motion to Compel followed. As noted above, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Compel on January 26, 2021. (Docket No. 72). Among other things, the Court considered Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' submission of multiple declarations with Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum.
[20] See supra note 1. The Court elected to permit consideration of the matters to which Defendants objected, but authorized Defendants to make a supplemental submission responding to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum and supporting documents and further directed Defendants to include specified data in such submission. (Docket No. 72).
[21]*6 In response to the Court's directive, Defendants' made a further submission which responded to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum
[22] and included the Declaration of Gwendolyn Eagen, which, in summary, essentially reflects: Between 2015 and 2021, GHI indirectly owned between approximately 30 and 44 subsidiaries in California with between approximately 3,417 and 7,300 non-exempt employees.
[23] (Eagen Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6). Between 2015 and 2021, GHI indirectly owned between approximately 25 and 40 subsidiaries in California with between approximately 2,357 and 3,509 non-exempt employees working in nursing positions providing direct patient care.
[24] (Eagen Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8). In comparison, Defendant ACC – [an indirect subsidiary of GHI and GHLLC where Plaintiff Valdez worked as a non-exempt Certified Nursing Assistant] – has a total of 143 non-exempt employees, including 125 non-exempt employees working in a nursing position providing direct patient care. (Eagen Decl. ¶ 9). GHI's indirect ownership interest in subsidiaries in California decreased to less than a majority in 14 out of 26 subsidiaries in 2020 and 18 out of 25 subsidiaries in 2021. (Eagen Decl. ¶ 12).
A. General Discovery Rules
Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties 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). Information within the foregoing scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). Absent a stipulation or order extending time, a party must, within 30 days after being served, respond to interrogatories by answer – furnishing information available to the party – or objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). 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 ground(s) for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). General or boilerplate objections 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).
Pursuant to Rule 34, any party may serve on any other party a request for the production or inspection of documents within the scope of Rule 26(b) which are in the responding party's possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The party seeking production of documents bears the burden of proving that the opposing party has such control. United States v. International Union of Petroleum and Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO (“Industrial Workers”), 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). Documents are deemed to be within a party's possession, custody or control if the party has actual possession, custody or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand. In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 517 U.S. 1205 (1996); see also Industrial Workers, 870 F.2d at 1452 (“Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.”) (citation omitted); In re Citric Acid Litigation, 191 F.3d 1090, 1106-08 (9th Cir. 1999) (subpoenaed non-party entity which was member of same international association as a foreign entity did not have legal control over foreign entity's documents as two entities were separate and no contract gave subpoenaed entity the right to compel the foreign entity to furnish it with documents in foreign entity's possession). Accordingly, a party has an obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its responses to discovery, and based on that inquiry, a party responding to a Rule 34 production request is under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably available to it from its employees, agents, or others subject to its control. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 189 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
*7 Unless excused by a protective order, in response to a request for the production of documents a party must, within 30 days of service thereof and as to each item or category, either: (1) state that the inspection will be permitted/production will be made; or (2) state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons, and state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(C). If the responding party states that it will produce documents, such production must be completed no later than the time specified in the request or another reasonable time specified in the response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).
If a party fails timely to object to discovery requests, such a failure generally constitutes a waiver of any objections which a party might have to the requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (any ground not stated in timely objection to interrogatory waived unless court, for good cause, excuses failure); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”) (citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 948 (1992); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 952254, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) (“Objections not interposed in a timely initial response may not be held in reserve and interposed after the period allowed for response ... ”) (citation omitted); Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 409-10 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (court declined to consider objections that were not asserted in responding party's original discovery responses based upon party's failure timely to make such objections).
[25]1. Possession, Custody or Control
The Genesis Defendants appear to argue that they do not have possession, custody or control of documents/information sought by the discovery requests in issue which pertain to and/or may otherwise solely be in the possession of/maintained by the Other Facilities because such entities are merely indirect subsidiaries of one or more Genesis Defendants and because the Genesis Defendants assertedly do not employ those who work at the Other Facilities. (JS 124-26). The parties' analysis somewhat conflates the issue of whether the Genesis Defendants have “possession, custody or control” of requested documents/information with the issue of whether the Genesis Defendants are joint employers of Plaintiffs and those who work at the Other Facilities or are engaged in an integrated enterprise with the Other Facilities. While the latter issues may bear on whether the Genesis Defendants should be deemed to have possession, custody or control of the documents in issue, they are, as discussed below, more issues of liability not appropriate for resolution by the Magistrate Judge. Thus, in this section, the Court focuses solely on whether the documents sought are or should be deemed to be in the possession, custody or control of the Genesis Defendants.
Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the Genesis Defendants have possession, custody or control of the documents in issue. Industrial Workers, 870 F.2d at 1452. A parent corporation is deemed to have possession, custody or control over documents possessed by a subsidiary that the parent corporation owns or wholly controls. See Industrial Workers, 870 F.2d at 1452 (“A corporation must produce documents possessed by a subsidiary that the parent corporation owns or wholly controls[,]” but subpoenaed international union did not have control over certain records of local unions because they were separate legal entities and contract governing union relationship did not give international union the right to obtain local union documents upon demand) (citing Hubbard v. Rubbermaid, Inc.,78 F.R.D. 631, 637 (D. Md. 1978) (party parent corporation required to produce otherwise discoverable documents of two non-party subsidiary corporations over which parent corporation had control); In re Investigation of World Arrangements with Relation to the Production, Transportation, Refining & Distribution of Petroleum, 13 F.R.D. 280, 285 (D.D.C. 1952) (corporation functions under guidance of its directors; if corporation has power, either directly or indirectly, through another corporation or series of corporations, to elect a majority of the directors of a second corporation, it may be deemed a parent corporation and in control of the second corporation whose directors it has the power to elect to office; if parent corporation has that power, it has the control necessary to secure demanded documents of second corporation); Advance Labor Service, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 60 F.R.D. 632, 633-34 (N.D. Ill. 1973) (where (1) directors and shareholders of plaintiff corporation and non-party technically separate corporation were identical; (2) primary function of non-party corporation was to provide transportation to plaintiff corporation; and (3) plaintiff corporation failed to demonstrate that production of requested documents of non-party corporation would be annoying, burdensome or completely irrelevant to the thrust of litigation, plaintiff corporation ordered to produce non-party corporation's documents)); In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, 233 F.R.D. 542, 544-45 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (parent entity defendant ordered to produce documents/information in possession and custody of non-party wholly owned subsidiaries as parent entity had legal control of documents/ information and failed to support its claim of burden); but see Quinn-White v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., 2018 WL 6074547, *2-*3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018) (party subsidiary not required to search files of employees of non-party parent as they were not in subsidiary's possession, custody or control; factors to be considered in assessing whether party entity had control over/legal right to obtain upon demand documents of non-party entity include (a) commonality of ownership; (b) exchange/commingling of directors/officers/employees; (c) exchange of documents between entities in ordinary course of business; (d) any benefit/involvement by non-party entity in transaction; and (e) involvement of non-party entity in litigation); Philippe Charriol Int'l Ltd v. A'Lor Int'l Ltd., 2016 WL 7634440, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2016) (affirming denial of motion to compel party entity to produce non-party entity's documents because there was no showing that party entity had possession, custody or control of/legal right to obtain non-party entity's documents; facts that party entity shared with/leased office space to/provided services to non-party entity, had in past obtained documents from non-party entity, and acted as management company for non-party entity insufficient/ not equivalent to parent/subsidiary relationship); Flowrider Surf, Ltd v. Pacific Surf Designs, Inc., 2016 WL 6522808, *8-*10 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) (in assessing whether, under Rule 34, a responding party entity has requisite control over documents of a non-party entity, courts consider corporate structure of the party and nonparty, the nonparty's connection to the transaction at issue in the litigation, the degree that the nonparty will benefit from the outcome of the case, whether the related entities exchange documents in the ordinary course of business, and whether the nonparty has participated in the litigation at issue; denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant corporation to produce documents maintained by non-party corporation as plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that defendant had control over documents; fact that defendant's CEO founded non-party corporation and that both companies shared same business address insufficient to establish the requisite control).
*9 Here, although it may have no practical impact, the Court draws a distinction between GHI and GHLLC on the one hand, and GAS, on the other. It is undisputed that GHI is the ultimate, albeit indirect parent and owner of GHLLC, GAS, ACC, and other health care centers/nursing homes in California (not including RCBH) and that GHLLC is an indirect parent and owner of GAS, ACC, and other health care centers/nursing homes in California (not including RCBH). Accordingly, the Court concludes that GHI and GHLLC are/should be deemed to be in possession, custody or control of documents/information sought by the discovery requests in issue which pertain to and/or may otherwise solely be in the possession of/maintained by health care service providers/nursing homes that are indirect subsidiaries they own.
[27] However, GAS is not a parent/owner of any of the foregoing entities. Nor is the Court persuaded that GAS wholly controls such entities. Instead, the record reflects that GAS provides administrative services to health care centers/nursing homes in California pursuant to administrative service agreements with the individual health care centers/nursing homes. Accordingly, the Court concludes that GAS cannot be deemed to have possession, custody or control of documents/information sought by the discovery requests in issue which pertain to and are otherwise solely in the possession of the health care service providers/nursing homes. Having said that, GAS is deemed to have possession, custody or control of those documents/information sought by the discovery requests in issue that are actually in its possession by virtue of its administrative service agreements with such entities.
The Court's determination that the Genesis Defendants have possession, custody or control of documents in issue is not, of course, the end of the analysis. As explained below, other considerations militate in favor of limiting the additional discovery the Genesis Defendants must produce.
4. Other Objections
The Genesis Defendants have interposed a number of other objections to multiple discovery requests in issue which the Court largely addresses in this section.
First, to the extent the Genesis Defendants have interposed general objections which they purport to have incorporated into each discovery response in issue, such objections are overruled because such general and boilerplate objections are improper. See Farber, 234 F.R.D. at 188. Such general objections do not explain or analyze on an individualized basis, why each particular discovery request is objectionable, and thus are inadequate.
Second, the Genesis Defendants' objections that certain of the requests in issue or terms therein are “vague and ambiguous” are overruled except as may otherwise be set forth below because the Court does not find the request/terms to be vague and ambiguous, particularly when the terms in issue are ready in context. In any event, to the extent the Genesis Defendants view terms used in the requests to be vague and ambiguous, the Genesis Defendants can qualify their responses by including their understanding of the terms in issue.
Third, to the extent the Genesis Defendants raise objections that certain requests in issue call for a legal conclusion, such objections are not persuasive and are overruled unless otherwise indicated below.
Fourth, the Genesis Defendants' privacy/third party privacy objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. Where, as here, federal jurisdiction is founded on the diversity of the parties pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), state privilege law applies to discovery disputes. See Lawson v. GrubHub, Inc., 2017 WL 1684964, *1 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) (collecting cases); Brown v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 13377045, *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (applying California state privilege law in assessing privacy objections in CAFA case). In California, the right to privacy is set forth in Article I, Section I of the California Constitution. California courts have treated the right to privacy as a privilege in the discovery context, and, as such, have determined it is a right subject to invasion depending upon the circumstances. See, e.g., Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., 8 Cal.4th 30, 42-44 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1059 (1994); Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 7 Cal.4th 1, 37 (1994). Thus, “the privilege is subject to balancing the needs of the litigation with the sensitivity of the information/records sought.” Davis v. Leal, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1110 (E.D. Cal.1999); see also Pioneer Elecs. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360, 371-75 (2007) (balancing privacy rights of putative class members with discovery rights of civil litigants). Here, to the extent the Court has ordered the Genesis Defendants to produce information/documents as to which a privacy objection has been asserted, it has determined that the privacy rights are outweighed by Plaintiffs' need for the information/documents and that such information can be adequately protected by the Protective Order which governs this action. Farber, 234 F.R.D. at 191 (privacy concerns can be addressed by carefully drafted protective order); Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 334 F.R.D. 275, 287 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“Generally, federal courts in this circuit have held that a protective order ... sufficiently protects putative class members and aggrieved employees' privacy interests in the confidentiality of their contact information.”) (collecting cases).
*13 To the extent the Genesis Defendants have asserted attorney-client privilege or attorney work product objections and have already withheld the production of documents or withhold the production of documents called for by this Order based on such objections, they must produce a privilege log contemporaneous with the production deadline set by this Order. To the extent the Genesis Defendants have not withheld/do not withhold the production of documents based on such objections, they must so inform Plaintiffs by the production deadline set by this Order.
Finally, to the extent the Court has not addressed objections above, or does not expressly address outstanding objections below and has nonetheless ordered the Genesis Defendants to produce additional discovery, it has overruled the objections.
2. Request for Production Nos. 1-30 Directed to GHLLC/Request for Production Nos. 1-30 Directed to GHI/Request for Production Nos. 1-30 Directed to GAS
RFP No. 1 essentially calls for the production of all insurance policies and plans covering any wage and hour claims held by GHLLC/GHI/GAS during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this request at this juncture because it is not persuaded that discovery of the requested insurance policies/plans is likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class allegations.
RFP Nos. 2-3 essentially call for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/GHI's/GAS's policies, procedures or practices regarding the provision, timing, and enforcement of rest periods and meal periods for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures, or practices regarding the provision, timing and enforcement of rest periods and meal periods for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the two-year period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to these requests as modified.
*14 RFP No. 4 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/GHI's/ GAS's policies, procedures or practices regarding the provision of break areas for COVERED EMPLOYEES to utilize for their meal and rest breaks during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures, or practices regarding the provision of break areas for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities to utilize for their meal and rest breaks during the two-year period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 5 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/GHI's/ GAS's policies, procedures or practices of providing minimum wages, regular wages, overtime wages, or double-time wages to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures, or practices of providing minimum wages, regular wages, overtime wages, or double-time wages to non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 6 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/GHI's/ GAS's policies, procedures or practices for reimbursing COVERED EMPLOYEES for necessary business-related expenditures during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures, or practices for reimbursing non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities for necessary business-related expenditures for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 7 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/GHI's/ GAS's policies, procedures, or practices of deducting wages or monies from COVERED EMPLOYEES' paychecks during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures, or practices of deducting wages or monies from the paychecks of non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 8 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/ GHI's/GAS's policies, procedures, or practices for paying all wages due to GHLLC'S/GHI's discharged or quitting employees during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures, or practices for paying all wages due to discharged or quitting non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 9 essentially calls for the production of all of GHLLC's/GHI's/GAS's employee handbooks and training materials for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
*15 The Court modifies this request to call for the production of employee handbooks and training materials for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 10 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/ GHI's/GAS's employee handbooks and training materials for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD including any training videos, training slideshows or PowerPoint-style presentations, videos related to GHLLC's/GHI's/GAS's employee handbooks or the policies contained therein, and slideshows or PowerPoint-style presentations related to GHLLC's/GHI's employee handbooks or the policies contained therein.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this request because, in connection with RFP No. 9, it has already ordered the production employee handbooks and training materials for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and does not believe that ordering production of any additional related materials would be proportional to the needs of the case, at least at this juncture.
RFP No. 11 essentially calls for the production of all collective bargaining agreements that GHLLC/GHI/GAS contend applied to any COVERED EMPLOYEE during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of all collective bargaining agreements governing non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 12 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC/GHI/ GAS providing an extra hour of compensation for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD who were not provided a meal break or rest period.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of documents sufficient to reflect whether or not the 10% Employee Sample was provided with an extra hour of compensation for any missed meal break or rest period for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 13 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to the date and hours worked by Plaintiffs during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including time cards, meal period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other documents of any form containing responsive information.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of documents sufficient to reflect the date and hours worked by the named Plaintiffs for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 14 essentially calls for the production of all payroll records relating to plaintiffs including 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.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of all payroll records relating to the named Plaintiffs for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
*16 RFP No. 15 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to the dates and hours worked by all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD, in edited and un-edited format, including time cards, meal period records, rest period records, sign in sheets, attendance records, or any other documents of any form containing responsive information.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of documents sufficient to reflect the dates and hours worked by the 10% Employee Sample for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 16 essentially calls for the production of all payroll records relating to GHLLC's/ GHI's/ GAS's COVERED EMPLOYEES including 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.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of all payroll records relating to the 10% Employee Sample for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 17 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to work schedules maintained by GHLLC/GHI/GAS of all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production of work schedules for the 10% Employee Sample for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 18 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/ GHI's/GAS's policies, procedures or practices of altering or editing time keeping records or payroll records of COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for the production documents sufficient to reflect the policies, procedures or practices, if any, of altering or editing time keeping records or payroll records of non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 19 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/ GHI's/GAS's time keeping procedures and payroll software for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the time keeping procedures, and payroll software utilized for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 20 essentially calls for the production of all documents 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.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents which describe the job duties, qualifications, requirements, responsibilities and/or essential job functions for non-exempt employee positions at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
*17 RFP No. 21 essentially calls for the production of all documents which show or describe the organizational and/or management structure of GHLLC/GHI/GAS during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the organizational and/or management structure of the Genesis Defendants for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 22 essentially calls for the production of all documents evidencing any changes made to GHLLC's/GHI's/GAS's policies, procedures, and/or practices regarding meal breaks, rest breaks, regular rate and overtime payments, and reimbursement for necessary expenditures during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect any changes made to policies, procedures, and/or practices at the Six Facilities regarding meal breaks, rest breaks, regular rate and overtime payments, and reimbursement for necessary expenditures for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 23 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to training sessions regarding wage and hour policies that GHLLC/GHI/GAS required COVERED EMPLOYEES to attend in connection with their employment with GHLLC/GHI/GAS at any time during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect the substance of any training sessions regarding wage and hour policies that the non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities were required to attend in connection with their employment at the Six Facilities at any time between 2016 and 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 24 essentially calls for the production of all documents related to GHLLC's/GHI's/ GAS's policies and procedures pertaining to employee waivers of meal periods during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect policies and procedures at the Six Facilities pertaining to employee waivers of meal periods during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 25 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to waivers of meal periods by COVERED EMPLOYEES.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this request because, in connection with RFP No. 24, it has already ordered the production of documents sufficient to reflect policies and procedures at the Six Facilities pertaining to employee waivers of meal periods during the period of 2016 to 2017 and does not believe that ordering the production of any additional related materials would be proportional to the needs of the case, at least at this juncture.
RFP No. 26 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to GHLLC's/ GHI's/GAS's policies and procedures pertaining to employee waivers of rest periods during the COVERED PERIOD.
*18 The Court modifies this request to call for documents sufficient to reflect policies and procedures at the Six Facilities pertaining to employee waivers of rest periods during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders the Genesis Defendants to produce such documents and a supplemental response to this request as modified.
RFP No. 27 essentially calls for the production of all documents which relate to waivers of rest periods by COVERED EMPLOYEES.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this request because, in connection with RFP No. 26, it has already ordered the production of documents sufficient to reflect policies and procedures at the Six Facilities pertaining to employee waivers of rest periods during the period of 2016 to 2017 and does not believe that ordering the production of any additional related materials would be proportional to the needs of the case, at least at this juncture.
RFP No. 28 essentially calls for the production of all documents which constitute or relate to settlement agreements obtained subsequent to the filing of plaintiffs' initial Complaint from COVERED EMPLOYEES for any of the claims alleged in plaintiffs' Complaint.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this request at this juncture because it is not persuaded that discovery of the requested documents are likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class allegations.
RFP No. 29 essentially calls for the production of all documents bearing the signature of the named Plaintiffs.
The Court grants the Motion to Compel as to this request to the extent it seeks an order compelling GHI and GHLLC to make reasonable inquiry of their subsidiaries ACC and Bay Crest for all employment documents bearing the signature of Plaintiffs Valdez and Willie and to produce any such documents it obtains therefrom and to the extent it seeks an order compelling GHI, GHLLC and GAS to produce any other employment documents bearing the signatures of the three named Plaintiffs that are otherwise in their possession, custody or control. The Court otherwise denies the Motion to Compel as to this request.
RFP No. 30 essentially calls for the production of the personnel files of the named Plaintiffs.
The Court grants the Motion to Compel as to this request to the extent it seeks an order compelling GHI and GHLLC to make reasonable inquiry of their subsidiaries ACC and Bay Crest for the personnel files of Plaintiffs Valdez and Willie and to produce any such documents it obtains therefrom and to the extent it seeks an order compelling GHI, GHLLC and GAS to produce any personnel file of the three named Plaintiffs that are otherwise in their possession, custody or control. The Court otherwise denies the Motion to Compel as to this request.
4. Interrogatories to GHI (Set 2)/GAS (Set 2) – Interrogatory Nos. 1-19
Interrogatory No. 1 in Plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories directed to GHI/GAS essentially calls for GHI/GAS to identify all of GHI's/GAS's business locations within California where COVERED EMPLOYEES worked during the COVERED PERIOD.
*19 The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to identify the locations of all GHI health care provider/nursing home subsidiaries in California where non-exempt employees worked during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 2 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to identify all business entities owned and/or operated by GHI/GAS within California during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this interrogatory because it is not persuaded that the response thereto would provide persuasive information substantiating the class allegations.
Interrogatory No. 3 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to identify all of GHI's/GAS's managers, including to District Managers, Market Managers, General Managers, and Payroll Managers during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to identify the managers at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 4 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to identify all of GHI's/GAS's employees who supervised COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to identify those who supervised the non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 5 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to state the dates in which GHI/GAS issued GHI's/GAS's policies regarding the provision of meal breaks, rest breaks, and overtime compensation to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to state the dates on which policies were issued governing the provision of meal breaks, rest breaks, and overtime compensation for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 6 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to state the first date in the COVERED PERIOD where GHI/GAS paid any “premium” payments, or one extra hour of compensation for any meal or rest breaks that were not provided where COVERED EMPLOYEES were prevented from taking meal or rest breaks.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this interrogatory because it is not persuaded that the response thereto would provide persuasive information substantiating the class allegations.
Interrogatory Nos. 7-8 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to state the total number of “premium” payments, or one extra hour of compensation, GHI/GAS paid to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD, for any meal breaks or rest breaks that were not provided or where COVERED EMPLOYEES were prevented from taking meal breaks or rest breaks.
The Court modifies these interrogatories to call for GHI/GAS to state (1) whether anyone in the 10% Employee Sample was prevented from taking a meal break/rest break or was not provided with a meal break/rest break during the period of 2016 to 2017; (2) if so, whether any such person(s) were paid any “premium” payments or one extra hour of compensation for any such missed meal break/rest break; and (3) if so, the respective total numbers of such “premium” payments or one extra hour of compensation paid to the 10% Employee Sample for missed meal breaks/rest breaks during the period of 2017 to 2017, and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to these interrogatories as modified.
*20 Interrogatory No. 9 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to identify all of GHI's/GAS's employees who created GHI's/GAS's wage and hour policies for COVERED EMPLOYEES in effect during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to identify those who created the wage and hour policies for non-exempt employees in effect at the Six Facilities for the period of 2016 to 2017, and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 10 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to describe GHI's/GAS's practices used to verify the total compensable hours worked by COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to describe the practices used to verify the total compensable hours worked by non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 11 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to describe GHI's/GAS's policies, in effect during the COVERED PERIOD, regarding payment of all wages due to discharged employees.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to describe the policies in effect during the period of 2016 to 2017, regarding payment of all wages due to discharged employees at the Six Facilities and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 12 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to describe GHI's/GAS's policies regarding “on call” duty for COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this interrogatory because the First Amended Complaint does not reference “on call” duty and does not allege a violation predicated on the same.
Interrogatory No. 13 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to describe GHI's/GAS's policies regarding paying non-discretionary bonus payments to COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court denies the Motion to Compel as to this interrogatory because the First Amended Complaint does not reference non-discretionary bonus payments and does not allege a violation predicated on the same.
Interrogatory No. 14 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to describe GHI's/GAS's policies regarding the adjustment of COVERED EMPLOYEES' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to describe the policies in effect during the period of 2016 to 2017, regarding the adjustment of non-exempt employees' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes at the Six Facilities and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 15 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to set forth the total number of COVERED EMPLOYEES employed by GHI/GAS during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to set forth the total number of non-exempt employees working at GHI subsidiaries in California during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 16 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to list all COVERED POSITIONS held by all COVERED EMPLOYEES during the COVERED PERIOD.
*21 The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to list all non-exempt positions at the Six Facilities held by the 10% Employee Sample who worked at such facilities during the two-year period of 2016 to 2017, and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 17 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to describe all timekeeping systems GHI/GAS used during the COVERED PERIOD to record the beginning and ending of each COVERED EMPLOYEES' work periods.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to describe the timekeeping systems used at the Six Facilities for the 10% Employee Sample during the two-year period of 2016 to 2017, to record the beginning and ending of the work periods, and orders GHLLC to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 18 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to identify all software programs GHI/ GAS has used for payroll processing during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to identify all software programs used to process payroll for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
Interrogatory No. 19 essentially calls for GHI/GAS to state the name of any companies GHI/ GAS has used for payroll processing during the COVERED PERIOD.
The Court modifies this interrogatory to call for GHI/GAS to state the name of any companies used to process payroll for non-exempt employees at the Six Facilities during the period of 2016 to 2017 and orders GHI/GAS to provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory as modified.
