Putnam

Putnam v. Eli Lilly and Co.

Good Law
508 F. Supp. 2d 812·2007 WL 2713639·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71025
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2007CV 07-3656-JFWPLAXCalifornia1,526 words

Opinion

Opinion

Abrams, J.

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Plaintiff in this action alleges that defendant has improperly treated its employees who are employed or have been employed as pharmaceutical representatives within the State of California during the four years prior to the filing of this action as exempt from California wage and hour laws. As a result, plaintiff contends, defendant has failed to pay overtime and did not allow the pharmaceutical representatives to take meal breaks. Plaintiff seeks certification of the class of such employees Plaintiff through discovery has attempted to obtain the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the putative class members, to no avail. In this Motion, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to produce the names and contact information of the potential class members or, in the alternative, the issuance of a pre-certi-fication notice to potential class members

Plaintiffs motion for class certification is currently due by September 4, 2007. In requests for production served on June 20, 2007, plaintiff sought the total number of pharmaceutical representatives who worked for defendant during the class period, as well as,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.