Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Virgil Smith brought a putative class and Private Attorneys General Act action against HealthPro Heritage, LLC and NewLife Physical Therapy, P.C. in the Eastern District of California. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges, and the court recited only as allegations, that defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime, failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods and related premium pay, failed to furnish accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay wages at separation, and engaged in unfair business practices.
On February 17, 2026, plaintiff served written discovery seeking identities and contact information for putative class members and for managers and supervisors, payroll and timekeeping records, arbitration agreements and onboarding documents, personnel files, and communications about pay, scheduling, productivity, meal and rest periods, and timekeeping. Defendant objected and declined substantive responses, contending that the overwhelming majority of the putative class signed arbitration agreements, and it refused to identify class members. After an informal discovery conference on August 5, 2026, defendant agreed to provide a sample of arbitration agreements and supplement some responses, while plaintiff preserved the right to move for full discovery. Defendant served some supplemental responses on September 18, 2026. Plaintiff then moved to compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 48 and Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-3, 5-7 and 9.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire 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: untimeliness was resolved by an amended case schedule, and the court was not persuaded that defendant lacked time for the joint statement or that meet-and-confer efforts were inadequate.
On the merits, defendant argued that plaintiff is part of a tiny percentage of workers who did not sign an arbitration agreement and that 95 percent of non-California employees signed, so class-wide discovery was unwarranted. Defendant relied on Godines v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., where a preemptive motion to decertify a class was granted before class discovery occurred. The court found Godines inapplicable because it involved decertification rather than discovery, and because the plaintiff there acknowledged a lack of diligence and a limited sub-group of opt-outs, whereas plaintiff here made no concession about class size and was diligent. Citing Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the court noted that the propriety of a class action often cannot be determined without discovery. It concluded that defendant was using a disputed conclusion about arbitration agreements to subvert class discovery and declined to assume the outcome.
The court also granted plaintiff's request for expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), finding a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute and no persuasive justification for defendant's failure to complete production. No dollar amount was set. Plaintiff presented a calculation of $11,850 for 15 hours but no affidavit under Local Rule 293, so a supplemental request is due within 14 days. The court cautioned that the claimed rates of $775 and $850 far exceed local Sacramento rates, citing recent awards of about $450 for junior associates and $490 to $695 for senior partners, and directed that the follow-up request adjust rates and justify rates and hours.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant's assertion that most putative class members signed arbitration agreements did not justify withholding class-wide discovery, because the court declined to assume that disputed conclusion.
- The court distinguished a decertification ruling from a discovery dispute, so a decision resolving class issues on undisputed facts does not automatically limit discovery.
- The order compels production but does not decide whether any arbitration agreement is enforceable or whether a class may be certified.
- Fee entitlement under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) was granted, but the amount remains open pending a supplemental filing within 14 days that satisfies Local Rule 293.
- Fee applicants in the Eastern District should expect scrutiny of requested rates against Sacramento market levels and should justify both rates and hours.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's discovery order in a single case, not a published opinion, and it carries no binding precedential weight. Its value lies in showing how one Eastern District court handled a common wage-and-hour tactic: resisting class discovery by pointing to arbitration agreements before their scope has been tested.
The order also signals fee practice in the district. The court tied entitlement to Rule 37 and left the amount open, and it warned counsel that rates well above prevailing Sacramento levels will not be granted. Still open are the final fee amount, whether arbitration agreements bind any class members, and class certification itself, none of which the court decided.