Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nora Berenice Martinez brought employment claims against Schulte Hospitality Group and sought discovery supporting a proposed statewide class. The parties disputed interrogatories and document requests reaching employees at locations beyond the two facilities where Martinez had worked.
The company had disclosed policies and information tied to those workplaces. Martinez did not claim the written policies themselves were unlawful and offered no evidence that employees at other California locations experienced the same alleged violations.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to compel in part but limited supplemental responses to the two facilities where Martinez worked. A named plaintiff seeking broad pre-certification discovery must provide some basis to believe systemwide information will substantiate the class allegations; the mere possibility of a statewide class did not justify statewide discovery on this record.
The court declined to award expenses. The scope dispute was substantially justified, and because each side prevailed in part, the court found it appropriate for each to bear its own costs.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-certification discovery is available to develop class allegations, but its geographic scope must be tied to evidence or plausible allegations.
- Companywide policies do not automatically justify companywide discovery when the plaintiff does not contend those policies are unlawful.
- Evidence from the named plaintiff’s own locations can be a reasonable first-stage boundary.
- A mixed ruling on a motion to compel may support denying Rule 37 fee shifting.
Why It Matters
Employment class counsel should build a factual bridge from the named plaintiff’s experience to broader locations before demanding statewide employee data. Employers, meanwhile, should support proportional alternatives rather than relying on blanket objections.