Ulloa II v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Background

Michael Angel Ulloa II brought a putative class action against his former employer, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., alleging wage-and-hour violations under California law. Securitas employed Ulloa as a “Flex Officer” from May 2022 through October 2022. Ulloa sought to represent current and former non-exempt employees of Securitas in California and also sought civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, on behalf of himself and other allegedly affected employees.

Ulloa filed a joint discovery letter asking the court to compel Securitas to respond to three interrogatories and four requests for production. The requests sought contact information for proposed class members and PAGA employees, as well as timekeeping, payroll, and wage records.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may obtain discovery about nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Information does not need to be admissible at trial to be discoverable. The party seeking discovery must show relevance, while the party opposing discovery must explain and support its objections with competent evidence. Courts also have broad discretion over discovery related to class certification.

Court’s analysis

Interrogatories 4–6. These interrogatories sought contact information for proposed class members and PAGA employees. Securitas objected that the parties disagreed about the proposed class, that Ulloa could not satisfy the commonality requirement for class certification, and that some employees were subject to arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers. Securitas offered to provide contact information only for employees covered by the same collective bargaining agreements as Ulloa.

The court found that Securitas’s objections were merits-based. At the discovery stage, the issue was whether the information was relevant, not whether Ulloa’s claims would ultimately succeed or whether the class could ultimately be certified. The court therefore granted the motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories 4–6. The discovery must be produced under a protective order, and the parties had to meet and confer about a model stipulated protective order.

Requests for production 12–13. These requests sought timekeeping and payroll records for proposed class members. Securitas argued that differences among client facilities, locations, businesses, and union status would prevent Ulloa from meeting the requirements for class certification. It also argued that Ulloa would not adequately represent nonunion employees who had signed class-action waivers. Securitas did not object based on relevance or burden with supporting details.

The court held that these objections also concerned the merits of class certification. It found that the requested records were relevant to Ulloa’s claims and could also relate to commonality and predominance, two class-certification requirements. Because Securitas had not provided a reasoned response to Ulloa’s proposal, the court ordered Securitas to provide a 20% sample of the requested records. The order did not prevent Ulloa from seeking additional responsive documents if a class were certified. The parties had to meet and confer about a mutually acceptable sampling method, and production was subject to the protective order.

Requests for production 14–15. These requests sought timekeeping and pay records for PAGA employees. Securitas objected that it did not maintain electronic timekeeping records for all non-exempt California employees, that some clients did not use electronic timekeeping systems, and that producing all timekeeping records would be burdensome and oppressive. It did not provide details supporting those objections and did not specifically respond to the request for pay records.

Ulloa requested production of all electronic wage statements for the PAGA period and offered to accept a 20% sample of handwritten time records if Securitas agreed not to challenge the sample’s representativeness or its use to estimate the entire PAGA period. Securitas did not respond to that proposal. The court held that Securitas had not met its burden to support its objections. Securitas therefore had to produce responsive documents subject to the protective order. The parties also had to immediately meet and confer about Ulloa’s proposal concerning handwritten time records and submit a joint letter by July 12, 2024, identifying any remaining disputes.

Disposition

The court granted Ulloa’s motion to compel. The parties had to submit a proposed protective order by July 12, 2024. Securitas had to serve supplemental interrogatory responses and responsive documents within seven days after the court entered the proposed protective order. Any joint letter concerning handwritten time records for PAGA employees was also due by July 12, 2024.