2015-00175330-CU-OE

Evyanne Phelps vs. Steven Madden Retail, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Protective Order

Filed By: Ritchey, Cindi L.

Defendant Steven Madden Retail, Inc.’s (Madden) motion for protective order is DENIED.

This is a putative wage-and-hour class action. The representative plaintiff is Evyanne helps (Phelps). Phelps recently propounded her third set of special interrogatories and first set of request for admissions. This discovery encompasses 133 interrogatories and 67 requests for admissions. Madden argues the discovery is excessive, duplicative, beyond the scope of discovery and unduly burdensome. The motion is supported by the Ritchey Declaration, in which counsel purports to authenticate several exhibits. The exhibits, however, are not attached. Madden’s failure to file exhibits that it contends substantiate the motion is grounds for a denial.

But even if Madden had filed a complete version of the moving papers, the court would not grant the protective order. Madden’s chief objection to the discovery is that Phelps is improperly using discovery tools in this case to develop issues in a separate PAGA proceeding. Specifically, Madden argues that much of the disputed discovery is aimed at its “regular rate of pay” calculations, which it argues might be relevant to the PAGA proceeding, but are not relevant in this case.

Phelps opposes Madden’s relevance argument. Madden argues that its allegations about unpaid overtime wages implicate the regular rate of pay, since the latter calculation informs the former. (See Opp. at 4:20.) Phelps has the better argument, and the court will not relieve Madden of all obligation to respond to discovery concerning regular rates of pay. The court expresses no opinion though, whether any

particular discovery request involving Madden’s regular rate-of-pay calculations is otherwise objectionable.

In any event, it is undisputed is that some of the discovery in question is not aimed at regular rates of pay. Yet, Madden seeks an order relieving it of the obligation to respond to any of the discovery. Neither the rate-of-pay argument nor Madden’s other arguments about excessive or duplicative discovery warrant such an order.

The court expressly rejects Madden argument that Phelps’ counsel’s declaration supporting service of more than 35 interrogatories is insufficient.

The motion is denied.

Madden is directed to respond to the discovery. It may raise appropriate objections.

The court trusts counsel will meet and confer thoroughly before engaging in further law and motion related to the discovery items at issue.