Wade v. C and S Company Inc.
2:24-cv-01561
D. Nev.May 30, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff Steven Wade alleges employer (C and S Company Inc.) avoided paying correct overtime by splitting pay into dual checks for the same period ("shop" and electrician work).
- Plaintiff also claims defendant failed to reimburse journeyman licensing costs.
- Plaintiff served requests for production for payroll records of other employees in similar roles (Journeyman Electrician, Electrician Foreman).
- Defendant refused, arguing discovery sought is not relevant or proportional.
- Plaintiff challenged the refusal, asserting relevance and lack of evidence he received or agreed to the company handbook rates.
- The court analyzed proportionality, relevance, and objections under FRCP 26(b)(1), granting some requests and denying others.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compelling production of payroll documents for requests 35 & 37 | Needed to prove actual pay practices; handbook not received | Irrelevant, handbook governs pay | Granted – defendant must respond |
| Compelling production for requests 36 & 38 | Needed for claims | Objection, not relevant/proportional | Denied – defendant need not respond |
| Relevance of pay practices for other employees | Shows pattern; handbook not followed | Only handbook/official rates matter | Plaintiff's view prevails for some docs |
| Generalized discovery objections | Defendant's were insufficiently specific | General objection to burden | Generalized objections rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (court has broad discretion in discovery management)
- Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) (burden on party opposing discovery to justify denial)
- Chubb Integrated Sys. Ltd. v. Nat'l Bank of Washington, 103 F.R.D. 52 (D.D.C. 1984) (general discovery objections are not helpful)