Gilmore v. Safe Box Logistics, Inc.

Background

The court considered a second jointly filed letter brief concerning discovery disputes. Janice Gilmore sought information from FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (referred to as “FXG”), including contact information for potential class members, scanner data, and contracts and communications with First Advantage. The court decided the disputes on the written submissions without oral argument.

Contact information for potential class members

Gilmore sought contact information for approximately 33,000 current and former drivers who had worked over the years for about 600 independent service providers contracting with FXG. FXG represented that its contact-information database was not up to date and could contain large amounts of incorrect information. FXG also argued that producing the information would be burdensome and of limited usefulness because Gilmore would still need to obtain payroll records from the service providers.

The court found those arguments persuasive. It concluded that producing a large, partially inaccurate database could create unnecessary privacy intrusions and impose an unnecessary burden on FXG. The court noted that Gilmore had reportedly rejected Safe Box’s earlier offer of a process for obtaining contact information and a sample of payroll and timekeeping records for more than 250 drivers. The court stated that Gilmore could reconsider that offer or use subpoenas to seek a similar sample from service providers, but it denied the request to compel contact information for the approximately 33,000 drivers.

Scanner data

Gilmore again sought scanner data under Requests for Production Nos. 15 and 16. The court had denied an earlier request for the same information. FXG represented that it possessed the data but that it recorded federally regulated “on-duty” hours rather than compensable timekeeping information. According to FXG, the data did not exclude break periods and had minimal or no probative value, while collecting and producing five years of data for more than 20,000 drivers would be burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

The court found Gilmore’s new arguments unpersuasive. It also declined to consider arguments that Gilmore had abandoned by failing to raise them earlier, explaining that litigants may not present objections or arguments piecemeal through repeated motions to compel. The court denied the second request to compel the scanner data.

First Advantage documents

Gilmore also sought FXG’s contracts and communications with First Advantage under Requests for Production Nos. 21 and 23. The opinion describes First Advantage as a consumer reporting agency that performed background checks to qualify drivers to drive under FXG’s authority. FXG had reportedly produced documents concerning Gilmore’s own qualification.

Gilmore argued that the broader contracts and communications were relevant because she alleged that FXG was a joint employer and required her and potential class members to authorize background checks before beginning employment. The court concluded that this explanation did not connect the requested material to any claim or defense. The court noted that the amended complaint concerned matters including meal periods, rest breaks, wages, wage statements, indemnification, unfair competition, and shared liability with a labor contractor. It therefore denied the request for the First Advantage materials.

Disposition and classification

Judge Robert M. Illman denied Gilmore’s requests to compel all three categories of discovery. The order addressed discovery issues and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.