Gilmore v. Safe Box Logistics, Inc.

Background

Janice Gilmore filed a proposed wage-and-hour class action against FedEx Ground and Safe Box Logistics, Inc., one of FedEx Ground’s contract service providers. Gilmore alleged that FedEx Ground was a joint employer and a “client employer” under California Labor Code section 2810.3. The discovery dispute concerned a letter brief in which Gilmore sought to compel interrogatory responses and document production from FedEx Ground.

The court decided the matter without oral argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and the court’s local rules.

Rulings on the Discovery Requests

1. Class members’ contact information, payroll records, and timekeeping records. Gilmore sought contact information for proposed class members and payroll and timekeeping records, including Department of Transportation scanner data. FedEx Ground represented that it did not possess or control the contact, payroll, or timekeeping information and that those records were held by the service providers. FedEx Ground also represented that it was providing contact information for the service providers that employed proposed class members. Because Gilmore did not dispute those representations, the court held that FedEx Ground could not be compelled to produce information it did not possess or control. The request was DENIED.

2. Scanner data. FedEx Ground possessed the scanner data but argued that it had little or no useful value and that producing five years of data for more than 20,000 drivers would be burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. FedEx Ground explained that the data recorded total elapsed “on-duty” time under Department of Transportation rules, did not reflect break times, and was not compensable timekeeping data. Gilmore did not explain the data’s usefulness or address FedEx Ground’s burden and proportionality arguments. The request to compel the scanner data was DENIED.

3. Documents and agreements involving service providers. Gilmore requested “all documents” exchanged between FedEx Ground and its service providers concerning transportation and delivery work by proposed class members in California. The court deemed the portion seeking all such documents abandoned because Gilmore’s argument focused on service-provider agreements and did not support the broader request.

The court separately considered the request for all agreements between FedEx Ground and every service provider relating to proposed class members during the relevant period. FedEx Ground objected that producing thousands of contracts would be overly burdensome and disproportionate. It represented that it had produced agreements and other documents concerning Safe Box and had agreed to provide examples of agreements for each year in the proposed class period. Because Gilmore did not explain why those materials were insufficient, the court DENIED the request for FedEx Ground’s entire collection of such agreements. The court stated that Gilmore could bring the dispute back through another jointly filed letter brief if, after reviewing the materials and making good-faith efforts to resolve the issue, she could provide a more specific explanation of why additional discovery was needed.

4. Internal financial analyses. Gilmore sought documents concerning any internal financial analysis prepared by FedEx Ground about contracting with service providers rather than directly employing drivers. Gilmore argued that the documents could support or refute the parties’ positions about FedEx Ground’s relationship with proposed class members. FedEx Ground argued that any such analysis substantially predated the relevant period and did not address the considerations used under California law to determine joint employment. The court agreed with FedEx Ground, finding Gilmore’s showing of relevance too general and speculative. The request was DENIED.

Disposition

The order denied the discovery requests as described above and deemed the unsupported portion seeking “all documents” abandoned. It did not decide whether FedEx Ground was an employer or joint employer of Gilmore or the proposed class members. Judge Robert M. Illman entered the order on January 23, 2023.