Hill v. Xerox Corporation et al, No. 2:2012cv00717 - Document 156 (W.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's order granting class certification (Dkt. No. 116 ), the Court certifies the following class: All persons who have worked at Defendants' Washington call centers under an "Activity Based Compensation&qu ot; or "ABC" plan that paid "per minute" rates for certain work activities between June 5, 2010, and the date of final disposition of this action. The following exclusion applies to the class: "Any employees who were hired after September 27, 2012 and who signed arbitration agreements as part of Defendants revised 2012 Dispute Resolution Program." Plaintiff's 144 Motion to Determine Number of Interrogatories Asked or For Leave to Serve More is DENIED. The parties shall appear for a status conference on 9/24/2019 at 9:00 a.m. to establish a new trial date and corresponding case scheduling order. Defendants' 155 Surreply is DENIED. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(MW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hill v. Xerox Corporation et al Doc. 156 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 10 CASE NO. C12-0717-JCC ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to define the scope of a certified 18 class (Dkt. No. 142) 1 and motion to determine the number of interrogatories asked or for leave to 19 serve additional interrogatories (Dkt. No. 144). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ 20 briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and issues the 21 following order. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 The Court has provided a detailed factual background of this case in a prior order, which 24 25 1 Plaintiff withdrew her motion the day before it noted for the Court’s consideration. 26 (Dkt. No. 152.) Nevertheless, the class definition issue posed by Plaintiff’s motion is ripe for determination. (See Dkt. No. 116.) ORDER C12-0717-JCC PAGE - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 it will not repeat here. (See Dkt. No. 116.) On July 10, 2014, the Court denied Defendants’ 2 motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for class 3 certification. (Id. at 13.) The Court chose not to precisely define the certified “ABC” class until it 4 had a reviewed a class settlement agreement from a similar lawsuit (the “Sump settlement”) to 5 determine whether claims that were released in that case would bar some class members from 6 participating in the present action. (Id. at 10, 13.) The Court directed the parties to file the Sump 7 settlement under seal and “either (1) jointly file a stipulation defining a class that accounts for the 8 Sump settlement; or (2) in the absence of any agreement, each file a brief not to exceed three 9 pages explaining how the proposed class should account for the Sump settlement.” (Id. at 10.) 10 The parties filed the Sump settlement agreement under seal, and each filed a brief 11 explaining how the proposed ABC class in this case should account for the claims released in the 12 Sump settlement. (Dkt. Nos. 121, 122, 123.) Defendants separately filed a motion for 13 reconsideration, asking the Court to reconsider both its denial of Defendants’ motion for partial 14 summary judgment and its certification of the ABC class. (Dkt. No. 117.) The Court denied 15 Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, but amended its order to certify that an immediate 16 interlocutory appeal of the Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment 17 was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. (Id. at 3.) Defendants subsequently appealed and 18 moved to stay all proceedings in this case pending resolution of their interlocutory appeal. (Dkt. 19 No. 128.) Although not objecting to a stay, Plaintiff asked the Court to issue an order defining 20 the scope of the ABC certified class. (See Dkt. No. 129.) The Court stayed the case, but declined 21 to provide a class definition. (See Dkt. No. 131.) 22 On July 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on Defendants’ interlocutory 23 appeal, affirming this Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. 24 (Dkt. No. 140); Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, Case No. 14-36029 (9th Cir. 2019). 25 Following issuance of the mandate, the Court lifted its stay and ordered the parties to file a joint 26 status report “informing the Court of the most expeditious way to proceed to resolution of this ORDER C12-0717-JCC PAGE - 2 1 action.” (Dkt. No. 141.) Plaintiff subsequently filed two motions: a motion to define the scope of the ABC class 2 3 (Dkt. No. 142), which is has since withdrawn; and a motion to “determine the number of 4 interrogatories asked or for leave to serve more.” (Dkt. No. 144). Defendant filed responses in 5 opposition to both motions. (Dkt. Nos. 147, 150). In accordance with the Court’s order, the 6 parties filed a joint status report in which they recommended differing ways to proceed in this 7 action. (See Dkt. No. 146.) Plaintiff recommends that the Court set a trial date and a 8 corresponding case scheduling order. (Id. at 1–2.) Defendants recommend that the Court allow 9 the parties to “submit briefs regarding how changes in the law and facts over the last five years 10 impact the expeditious resolution of this case.” (Id. at 2–3.) 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. 13 The Court asked the parties to file briefs on how the Sump settlement affects the scope of Class Definition 14 the ABC class. (See Dkt. No. 116 at 10.) Plaintiff asserts that members of the Sump settlement 15 class released all of their relevant wage-and-hour claims for conduct occurring “on or before 16 June 4, 2010.” (Dkt. No. 123 at 2.) Given the release date in the Sump settlement, Plaintiff 17 asserts that the ABC class should cover all claims accruing on or after June 5, 2010. (Id. at 3.) In 18 contrast, Defendants point out that the release of claims in the Sump settlement did not become 19 “effective” until September 10, 2010, the date the arbitrator in that case entered a final approval 20 of the class settlement. (Dkt. No. 121 at 3.) Given the effective date of the release, Defendants 21 argue that the ABC class should not cover claims before September 10, 2010. (Id. at 4.) 22 The Court has reviewed the Sump settlement and concludes that Plaintiff has the better 23 argument regarding the Sump settlement’s effect on the scope of the ABC class. The Sump 24 settlement is clear that class members were releasing claims based on conduct that occurred “on 25 or before June 4, 2010.” (Dkt. No. 119 at 6.) Regardless of when that settlement became 26 effective, the scope of the released claims in the Sump settlement never changed. To avoid ORDER C12-0717-JCC PAGE - 3 1 overlapping claims in this class action, the Court is concerned with which claims were released 2 in the Sump settlement, not when those claims were released. There is nothing in the Sump 3 settlement that suggests the plaintiffs were releasing claims based on conduct occurring after 4 June 4, 2010. Therefore, the Court finds that the effect of the Sump settlement on the ABC class 5 is to bar class claims that accrued prior to June 4, 2010. In accordance with the Court’s prior 6 class certification order (Dkt. No. 116), the Court defines the ABC class as follows: 7 8 9 10 All persons who have worked at Defendants’ Washington call centers under an “Activity Based Compensation” or “ABC” plan that paid “per minute” rates for certain work activities between June 5, 2010, and the date of final disposition of this action. In addition, the following exclusion will apply to the ABC class: “Any employees who 11 were hired after September 27, 2012 and who signed arbitration agreements as part of 12 Defendants’ revised 2012 Dispute Resolution Program.” This class exclusion is appropriate for 13 several reasons. First, in arguing for certification of the ABC class, Plaintiff explicitly stated that 14 “agents who started after September 27, 2012 and signed an individual arbitration agreement are 15 excluded from the class.” (Dkt. No. 76 at 14) (emphasis added). Second, in certifying the ABC 16 class the Court acknowledged that “at least some of the agents who started after September 27, 17 2012, and signed arbitration agreements will be prevented from participating in this class 18 action.” (Dkt. No. 116 at 9.) Third, the Court included this type of exclusion in a closely related 19 class action brought against Defendants, in which the plaintiffs alleged almost identical wage20 and-hour claims. See Douglas v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, Case No. C12-1798-JCC, Dkt. 21 No. 187 at 10 (W.D. Wash. 2014). Therefore, this class action will proceed based on the above 22 class definition and exclusion. 23 B. 24 Before the Court stayed this action, Plaintiff served Defendants with 19 interrogatories. Interrogatories 25 (See Dkt. No. 149 at 2–23.) In their responses—submitted in April 2013—Defendants objected 26 because two of the interrogatories contained several “subparts” that Defendants would treat as ORDER C12-0717-JCC PAGE - 4 1 separate interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). (Id. at 8.) After the 2 Court lifted its stay, Plaintiff served an additional three interrogatories on Defendants. (Id. at 25– 3 31.) Defendants’ responses to those interrogatories are due on August 16, 2019. (See id.); Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 33(b)(2). 5 In her motion, Plaintiff avers that “Defendants are expected to object that Plaintiff has 6 exceeded the limit in Civil Rule 33,” because of their prior objection to Plaintiff’s initial 7 interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 144 at 1.) Plaintiff asks the Court to “order that her interrogatories do 8 not contain discreet subparts or, alternatively, an order requiring Defendants to answer additional 9 interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33(a)(1).” (Id.) 2 10 Plaintiff is asking the Court to resolve an unripe dispute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 33(b)(2) expressly gives a party 30 days to answer and object to interrogatories. Plaintiff 12 speculates that Defendants will object to her latest interrogatories as exceeding the limit imposed 13 by Rule 33(a)(1). But the Court can only guess as to whether Defendants will object on this 14 ground because their deadline to respond has not passed. Indeed, Plaintiff filed this motion 15 weeks before Defendants had to respond. 16 Essentially, Plaintiff is preemptively seeking an order compelling Defendants to answer 17 her latest set of interrogatories. Defendants should be afforded an opportunity to respond prior to 18 the Court compelling them to answer. This is the exact type of issue that should have been 19 addressed through a good faith meet-and-confer, prior to the filing a discovery motion—this 20 Court is not in the business of adjudicating hypothetical discovery disputes. 21 Plaintiff’s motion regarding her interrogatories (Dkt. No. 144) is DENIED. Prior to filing 22 any future discovery motions, the parties shall conduct a good faith meet-and-confer session that 23 addresses the specific issues underlying the discovery dispute. 24 // 25 26 2 Defendants filed a surreply (Dkt. No. 155) asking the Court to strike various exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs. Defendants request is DENIED. ORDER C12-0717-JCC PAGE - 5 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 3 1. Pursuant to the Court’s order granting class certification (Dkt. No. 116), the Court 4 certifies the following class: 5 7 All persons who have worked at Defendants’ Washington call centers under an “Activity Based Compensation” or “ABC” plan that paid “per minute” rates for certain work activities between June 5, 2010, and the date of final disposition of this action. 8 The following exclusion applies to the class: “Any employees who were hired after 6 9 September 27, 2012 and who signed arbitration agreements as part of Defendants’ revised 2012 10 Dispute Resolution Program.” 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion to determine the number of interrogatories asked or for leave to 12 serve additional interrogatories (Dkt. No. 144) is DENIED. The parties shall conduct a good 13 faith meet-and-confer prior to filing any future discovery motions. 14 3. The parties shall appear for a status conference on September 24, 2019 at 9:00 15 a.m. to establish a new trial date and corresponding case scheduling order. 16 DATED this 13th day of August 2019. 17 18 19 A 20 21 22 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 ORDER C12-0717-JCC PAGE - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
