3:23-cv-05170
W.D. Wash.May 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Dale Empey alleges his employer, Caliber Holdings LLC, violated Washington law by failing to properly compensate his labor, specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime pay.
- The dispute centers on whether Empey was classified as a commissioned, piece-rate, or hourly employee, which is crucial for determining compensation and overtime entitlement.
- Empey claims his pay was improperly reduced for work already performed and that he did not receive overtime payments for hours worked beyond 40 in some weeks.
- Plaintiff moved to compel discovery from defendants after they failed to produce key wage and pay documents by the promised date, arguing these records are needed to prove the nature and adequacy of his compensation.
- Defendants resisted producing the documents, arguing the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant, and claimed that samples already produced sufficed.
- The court's order addresses whether Caliber's objections justify withholding or limiting discovery, and whether full production is warranted under federal discovery rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Discovery | Discovery is relevant and needed to prove compensation claims | Requests are overbroad, burdensome, and irrelevant | Discovery is relevant and proportional; must be produced |
| Classification of Employment | Plaintiff is not a commissioned employee and should get overtime/min wage | Plaintiff was properly classified | Discovery key to determining classification; production compelled |
| Production Timeline and Sufficiency | Prior production and promises insufficient; needs all wage docs now | Sample documents suffice; need more time | Full production required within 30 days |
| Objections and Discovery Conduct | Defendant's objections inadequate and evasive | Objections are proper and production too burdensome | Defendant’s objections overruled; cooperation ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (discussing broad scope of relevance in discovery)
- Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wash. 2d 299 (importance of cooperation and forthrightness in discovery)
- Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, 191 Wash. 2d 751 (statutory interpretation in favor of employees under wage laws)
- Sampson v. Knight Transportation, Inc., 193 Wash. 2d 878 (minimum wage and overtime protections under Washington law)