Tlaloc Munoz, Miguel Ruiz, Edgar Corona, and Steven Snavely, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.
3:22-cv-01269
S.D. Cal.Aug 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former distributors for Earthgrains Distribution, LLC and Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., alleging misclassification as independent contractors and bringing claims on behalf of similarly situated individuals.
- Plaintiffs served discovery requests seeking certain financial and accounting documents, specifically about revenue recognition, from Defendants and their parent company, Grupo Bimbo.
- Plaintiffs argue these documents are relevant to show Defendants' true customer and control—key issues for their misclassification claims under the "ABC" test.
- Defendants opposed, asserting the requests are disproportionate, and crucially, that they do not have possession, custody, or control over Grupo Bimbo's documents, as Grupo Bimbo is a foreign parent with separate operations.
- Court finds the documents sought by the plaintiffs relevant and proportional, but the question turns on whether Defendants have access or the legal right to obtain the documents from Grupo Bimbo.
- The motion comes prior to class certification, and discovery is ongoing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of requested documents | Documents show revenue flow and control, central to misclassification claims | Requests are disproportionate; documents not needed for class certification | Documents are relevant and proportional to the case |
| Possession, custody, or control | Overlap in management and financial guarantees shows Defendants can access documents | Separate legal structures, operations, and IT; no legal right to demand documents from parent | Plaintiffs did not meet burden to show Defendants have possession, custody, or control |
| Access to shared databases/intranet | Senior employees could access documents through shared systems | No access to working financial documents; only general policies are on shared systems | Overlap not sufficient; no evidence documents are accessible as needed for legal control |
| Impact of parental guarantee or overlap | Group Bimbo's financial guarantees and board overlap supports access | Financial relationship alone does not establish control under Ninth Circuit "legal right" test | Parental guarantee does not establish legal control; more is needed under Circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts have broad discretion to determine relevance in discovery)
- In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) ("control" under Rule 34 means actual legal right to obtain documents, not just practical ability)
- United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1989) (party seeking discovery must show opposing party's control over requested materials)
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (pre-certification discovery lies in discretion of the court)