Eacret v. Crunch, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs filed a joint letter brief asking the court to resolve several discovery disputes. They sought to compel production under Requests for Production (RFP) Nos. 2, 3, 35, and 49, concerning work schedules, working hours, timecards, time sheets, and documents identified in Crunch’s initial disclosures. They also sought permission to take a third deposition about Crunch’s policies for calculating the plaintiffs’ overtime rates from July 1, 2015, through September 26, 2018. Fact discovery had closed on September 15, 2022, but the court found the dispute timely because it was filed within seven days of the discovery deadline.

Requests for Time and Work-Schedule Records

For RFP Nos. 2, 35, and 49, the plaintiffs argued that Crunch possessed or controlled additional time records or could obtain missing information from the software company that maintained the records. Crunch responded that it had produced all of the plaintiffs’ time records in its possession, custody, or control, including wage statements, punch records, wage- and schedule-related emails, and audit records showing the time-record history. Crunch also said that the alternative schedules the plaintiffs sought were essentially the plaintiffs’ personal Google Calendars, which Crunch could not access.

The court denied the requests to compel production because Crunch represented that it had already provided all responsive material in its possession, custody, or control, and because it could not produce material it did not possess or control.

Spoliation Sanctions

The plaintiffs argued that Crunch had destroyed or failed to preserve information showing who edited time records and when. They relied in part on time records produced in an unrelated case and argued that the absence of similar information in this case showed willful destruction of evidence. They sought sanctions, including an adverse-inference presumption and a jury instruction. An adverse inference would allow a jury to presume that missing evidence was unfavorable to the party accused of losing it.

The court explained that spoliation means destroying, significantly altering, or failing to preserve evidence relevant to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. It also stated that possession, custody, or control of the evidence is a necessary prerequisite. The court denied the sanctions request concerning the plaintiffs’ personal Google Calendars and Gmail accounts because Crunch said it had no access to them. It also denied the request concerning other materials because Crunch had certified in writing that it had produced all responsive material in its possession, custody, or control. The court found that the plaintiffs had not specifically identified destroyed documents, shown prejudice, or provided evidence that Crunch acted with an intent to deprive them of information. The court further stated that the sanctions request was independently subject to denial because the plaintiffs improperly included it in a joint discovery letter brief instead of filing a separate sanctions motion.

RFP No. 3

RFP No. 3 concerned writings identified in Crunch’s initial disclosures. The plaintiffs limited their request to documents concerning their individual claims and asked Crunch to provide supplemental responses confirming that it would produce those documents. Crunch responded that it had amended its disclosures and produced the identified documents, including personnel files, time records, payroll records, and related emails. Because Crunch had already done what the plaintiffs requested, the court denied the request as unnecessary.

Request for a Third Deposition

The plaintiffs sought a third deposition about how their overtime rates and overtime recalculations were reflected on their wage statements. They were dissatisfied with answers given during two earlier depositions. According to the opinion, one witness directed them to Crunch’s handbook, and Crunch said that the plaintiffs’ counsel asked only a few overtime questions during the second deposition before ending it.

The court denied the request for a third deposition. It found that the plaintiffs’ six-sentence portion of the letter brief did not clearly explain what information had been withheld, why Crunch was responsible, or what was inadequate about the earlier responses. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had already had an extended discovery period and access to document requests, two depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission. The court concluded that the request appeared to reflect dissatisfaction with the answers rather than a showing that additional information had been withheld.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman denied the plaintiffs’ requests to compel production under RFP Nos. 2, 3, 35, and 49, denied the spoliation-sanctions request, and denied the request for a third deposition. The order does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying overtime claims.