Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on November 30, 2020, after the court had granted several extensions because additional discovery was needed. The parties later submitted a joint letter concerning two categories of information: stop-level data and GPS data.

FedEx had previously agreed to produce the stop-level data but had not produced it before the class-certification filing deadline. FedEx did not agree to produce GPS data. FedEx argued that both types of information had ceased to be proportional to the needs of the case once the plaintiffs filed their class-certification motion. FedEx also argued that the discovery request concerning stop-level data was a pretext for filing another class-certification motion.

Magistrate Judge Tse ordered FedEx to produce the stop-level data. As to GPS data, he ordered FedEx to provide a declaration describing, with reasonable particularity, the GPS data that existed for the relevant period. He then required the parties to meet and confer—that is, discuss the issue in an effort to reach agreement—after the plaintiffs reviewed the declaration. If they could not agree, they could file a joint letter.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial motion if the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it applies the wrong legal standard or fails to consider a required part of the applicable standard.

Court’s analysis

For the stop-level data, the court found that FedEx did not dispute that it had agreed to produce the data or that the data fell within the scope of discovery. FedEx had expanded its arguments about proportionality and relevance in the district court, but had not focused on those issues when presenting the dispute to Judge Tse. FedEx’s counsel had also stated that the data could be produced within two weeks if ordered. The court therefore concluded that Judge Tse’s ruling on the stop-level data was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

For the GPS data, the court noted that Judge Tse had not ordered FedEx to produce the GPS data itself. Instead, he had ordered FedEx to provide a declaration and required the parties to meet and confer before further action. Judge Tse had expressed a tentative view that GPS data should not be produced at that time, while also concluding that the record was not sufficient to resolve the issue and that the parties should first address proportionality and undue burden under the procedure in his order. FedEx had not argued that preparing the declaration or participating in that procedure would be unduly burdensome. The court denied FedEx’s motion as to the GPS data because the challenge was premature.

Disposition

The court denied FedEx’s motion for relief from Judge Tse’s discovery order. FedEx was required to produce the stop-level data and the GPS declaration by February 23, 2021. The parties were required to follow the GPS-data procedure in Judge Tse’s order, with any later joint letter due by March 2, 2021. The court reserved ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees until the GPS-data issue was fully resolved.