Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Virgil Smith sued HealthPro Heritage, LLC and NewLife Physical Therapy, P.C. in the Eastern District of California as a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The operative first amended complaint alleges that he and similarly situated non-exempt employees in occupational therapy and related patient care were required or allowed to work during unpaid meal periods and were required to work off the clock before or after shifts. Those are allegations only, and the order makes no finding on them.
The dispute concerns written discovery served on March 4, 2026. Plaintiff sought the identities and contact information of putative collective members and of managers and supervisors, payroll, wage and timekeeping records, arbitration agreements and onboarding documents, personnel files, and communications about compensation, scheduling, productivity, meal periods and timekeeping. Defendant objected and declined to give substantive responses, asserting that the overwhelming majority of the collective had signed arbitration agreements, and it refused to identify collective members.
The parties conferred, and defendant informally produced template agreements and information about its electronic signature process. After an informal telephonic discovery conference on August 5, 2026, they agreed that defendant would provide a sample of arbitration agreements while plaintiff preserved the right to compel all of them, and defendant agreed to supplement some responses. It had not done so when plaintiff moved to compel.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge granted the motion to compel in full and ordered defendant to produce the requested discovery within 14 days. The court rejected defendant's procedural objections. The timeliness objection had been resolved by an amended case schedule, and the court was not persuaded that the time for preparing the joint statement or the meet-and-confer efforts were inadequate given the history of the case.
On the merits, the court held that defendant improperly conflated discovery relevance with the ultimate merits of its arbitration defense. Defendant relied on Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., which treats it as an abuse of discretion to authorize notice to employees whose claims are undisputedly subject to arbitration. The court noted that Harrington declined to adopt a bright-line rule requiring conclusive arbitrability determinations before notice. It also found that plaintiff disputed defendant's asserted percentage of employees who signed agreements. In FLSA collective actions the identities and contact information of similarly situated employees are generally relevant and proportional, citing Soto v. O.C. Communications, Inc. The court distinguished Godines v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., a Rule 23 decertification ruling in which the plaintiff conceded a lack of diligence and a limited sub-group had opted out of arbitration.
The court also granted plaintiff's request for expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). It found that plaintiff made a good-faith attempt to obtain the discovery and that defendant gave no persuasive justification for not completing production. It did not set an amount. Plaintiff claimed $11,850 for 15 hours of work, 12 at $775 and 3 at $850, but filed no affidavit under Local Rule 293. Plaintiff must file a supplemental request within 14 days that adjusts its rates and justifies both rates and hours. The court cautioned that the quoted rates far exceed local Sacramento rates, citing recent awards of about $450 for junior associates and $490 to $695 for senior partners, with rates above $600 reserved for attorneys with more than 30 years of experience.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant cannot narrow collective-wide discovery by assuming that its disputed arbitration defense will succeed.
- Harrington does not require a conclusive arbitrability determination before notice, and the court read it that way when rejecting defendant's reliance on it.
- Identities and contact information of similarly situated employees are generally treated as relevant and proportional in FLSA collective actions.
- A prevailing Rule 37 movant must still support a fee request with a Local Rule 293 affidavit and rates consistent with the forum's prevailing market.
- A decertification ruling decided on undisputed facts does not control a discovery dispute where the facts are disputed and the plaintiff has been diligent.
Why It Matters
This is an interlocutory discovery order by a magistrate judge. It is a district court order of limited, persuasive weight rather than binding precedent. It does not decide whether any putative collective member must arbitrate, whether notice will issue, or whether a collective will be certified. Those questions remain open, and defendant keeps its arbitration defense.
Practically, the order shows how an Eastern District of California court applied the relevance and proportionality standard to a defendant's attempt to use widespread arbitration agreements to limit discovery. The fee amount is also still undetermined. The court's guidance on Sacramento-area rates signals that counsel's requested rates will be tested against prevailing local ranges.