(explaining that a plaintiff suing a former employer for violation of California's overtime wages law could not seek defendant's work product through contention interrogatory such as the following: "'Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 3. Please state all facts on which defendant SLB based the classification of Plaintiff Kenneth Lawrence as exempt pursuant to the California Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders (4-2001 and/or 16-2001) after November, 2001.'"; "On its face, the Court agrees the interrogatory may invade the attorney work product privilege. Had Plaintiff not intended to invade this privilege, he would not have referenced California law or the Wage Orders. As worded, the interrogatories ask, in essence, 'Why do you think that the facts, as you knew them, when applied to California Law and the Wage Orders, meant that Field Engineers/Field Specialists/Plaintiff were properly classified as exempt?' However, the Court was informed at the hearing that Defendant is currently unaware of any relevant work product and, on based upon the breadth of the request, Defendant has not produced a privilege log. Thus, at this time, the objection is not well-taken and is OVERRULED."; "Here, the Court concludes that requiring a response to the unobjectionable part of the interrogatories would significantly advance the litigation since these facts go to the very heart of the key issues raised in this litigation. Likewise, the Court can see no undue burden in requiring a response or any prejudice that would result. . . . Thus, when the objectionable material is carved away, there remains a permissible question as to each Interrogatory which should be answered."; "As to Interrogatory No. 1, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to the clarified and narrowed request which reads, 'State the facts that explain why Defendant determined Plaintiff's position, 'Field Engineer,' was exempt. The interrogatory is limited to the period of time that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.'"; "As to Interrogatory No. 2, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to the clarified and narrowed request which reads, 'State the facts that explain why Defendant determined the position, 'Field Specialist,' was exempt. The interrogatory is limited to the period of time that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.'"; "As to Interrogatory No. 3, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to the clarified and narrowed request which reads, 'State the facts that explain why Defendant determined Plaintiff's position, while he was employed by Defendant, was classified as exempt.'")
Case Date |
Jurisdiction |
State |
Cite Checked |
2015-06-16 |
Federal |
CA |
|