Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Derek L. Mobley and others sued Workday, Inc. in the Northern District of California alleging employment discrimination. The district judge set a class-certification schedule in July 2026: plaintiffs' motion by September 14, Workday's opposition and motion to decertify the ADEA collective by November 10, plaintiffs' reply by December 8, and a hearing on March 9, 2027. Discovery was not bifurcated between certification and merits. Plaintiffs served their Third Set of requests for production on June 12, 2026, including Request No. 14 seeking full customer contracts and service-specific addenda. Workday served objections on July 13 and on August 4 stated it "will produce" master subscription agreements and order forms after giving customers contractual notice.
Workday produced principal contract volumes between August 21 and September 18, with about two-thirds of its total production occurring after July 31, including the first HiredScore Addendum on August 21. Plaintiffs raised five of six deficiency categories in letters between August 21 and 31, before the September 14 motion; the sixth concerned records Workday first disclosed in August 24 interrogatory answers. On October 9, plaintiffs sent an eight-page letter identifying six categories of allegedly unproduced documents and requested a written response by October 16 and complete production by October 23. Workday moved for a protective order to defer its response and the deposition of David Dahan, a data scientist living in Israel who verified interrogatory answers and filed a declaration, until after its November 10 briefing deadline.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied Workday's motion for a protective order. The court held that Workday failed to show the specific prejudice or harm required by Rule 26(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent. First, the burden of answering the October 9 letter was modest and existed regardless of the briefing schedule: the letter concerned requests served in June 2026 and December 2025, and answering it constituted the meet-and-confer required by the court's standing order. Workday had answered a similar August 31 letter in four pages on September 7 and could do the same here. Part of the letter sought production Workday had promised on August 4 and that its counsel acknowledged on October 16 was incomplete; a party's obligation to complete promised production does not pause during briefing.
Second, the briefing burden fell on both sides: plaintiffs were producing opt-in discovery every two weeks through November 30 and presenting fifteen declarants for deposition in late October while preparing to answer Workday's opposition and decertification motion. Workday had nine attorneys of record and had told plaintiffs in August that discovery was not bifurcated and it would not limit its motions. Third, the timing was not plaintiffs' doing: they served the Third Set on June 12, raised five categories before the September 14 motion, and the sixth concerned records Workday first disclosed on August 24. The court distinguished cases staying discovery pending potentially dispositive motions, noting class certification is not dispositive. The request to defer Dahan's deposition was denied as moot because plaintiffs had agreed not to take it before November 10, though the parties' dispute over whether Dahan must be produced under the Hague Convention or as a managing agent was left for future resolution if it ripens.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c) must demonstrate specific prejudice or harm, not merely a busy briefing schedule or general workload.
- Obligations to complete promised document production and to participate in meet-and-confer conferences do not pause while a party briefs a class-certification opposition.
- When both parties face simultaneous briefing and discovery burdens, courts will not favor one side's schedule over the other's absent a showing of particularized harm.
- Class-certification briefing does not justify staying discovery because certification is not dispositive—the case and discovery continue regardless of the certification decision.
- A request to defer a deposition becomes moot when the opposing party agrees to the requested timing, though underlying disputes about deposition logistics remain for future resolution.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that Rule 26(c) protective orders require a concrete showing of undue burden or specific prejudice, not just competing litigation demands. It clarifies that ongoing discovery obligations—including meet-and-confer responses and completion of promised productions—continue during class-certification briefing, especially when discovery is not bifurcated.
The ruling also leaves open the separate question of whether a foreign-resident declarant must be produced under the Hague Convention or as a managing agent, preserving that issue for a future letter-brief dispute if the parties cannot resolve it.