IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("Stonefield," "SLG," or "Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, hereby serves the following Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Marcus Delano's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1–25), served on June 20, 2025, pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These Objections and Responses are served on this 21st day of July, 2025.
These responses are based on information and documents reasonably available to SLG as of the date of service hereof. Discovery in this matter is ongoing, and SLG's investigation into the facts and circumstances underlying Plaintiff's claims and SLG's defenses is continuing. Accordingly, SLG expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct any of the responses set forth herein as additional information becomes available through the course of discovery, further investigation, or otherwise, in accordance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nothing contained in these responses shall be construed as a waiver of any objection, privilege, defense, or right that SLG may have in this or any other proceeding.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
SLG interposes the following General Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. These General Objections apply to each and every Interrogatory propounded by Plaintiff and are incorporated by reference into each specific response set forth below. The assertion of a specific objection to any particular Interrogatory does not waive or limit the applicability of any General Objection, and the failure to assert a specific objection to any particular Interrogatory does not waive or limit any General Objection.
General Objection No. 1: Scope and Relevance. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as defined by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, SLG objects to any Interrogatory that seeks information that is not relevant to any party's claim or defense in this action, or that is not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
General Objection No. 2: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it calls for the disclosure of information, documents, or communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine as set forth in Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection recognized under federal or state law. SLG has engaged and communicated with counsel regarding the matters at issue in this litigation, including but not limited to Pennfield & Daye LLP, which served as SLG's employment counsel and advised on driver classification, and Calderwood & Harkness LLP, which serves as SLG's litigation counsel in this action. SLG will not disclose privileged communications, attorney work product, or other protected information in response to these Interrogatories. To the extent any Interrogatory calls for such information, SLG's response is made without waiving the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. A privilege log has been or will be produced in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order entered June 16, 2025, and Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
General Objection No. 3: Overbreadth and Undue Burden. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad in scope, unduly burdensome, or oppressive, or to the extent it seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case. SLG is a logistics company that operates across 14 distribution hubs located in four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas), and during the relevant period at issue in this litigation, approximately 1,187 unique individuals signed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements and performed delivery driving services for SLG. The breadth of many of Plaintiff's Interrogatories, which seek detailed information spanning all hubs, all drivers, and a multi-year period, imposes a significant burden on SLG that is disproportionate to the needs of the case, particularly at this early stage of the litigation and prior to any determination by the Court regarding the appropriateness of collective treatment.
General Objection No. 4: Premature Collective-Wide discovery. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information pertaining to the putative collective as a whole, or to drivers other than the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on July 14, 2025. SLG's response to that motion is due on August 13, 2025, and the Court has not yet ruled on whether conditional certification is appropriate. Discovery directed at the putative collective, including requests for information about the experiences, compensation, hours, or working conditions of all 1,187 drivers, is premature and inappropriate prior to the Court's determination of whether a collective may properly be conditionally certified. SLG reserves the right to seek a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limiting collective-wide discovery pending the Court's ruling on conditional certification.
General Objection No. 5: Vague and Ambiguous Terms. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it uses terms that are vague, ambiguous, or undefined, rendering the Interrogatory susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations. Without limitation, SLG specifically objects to Plaintiff's use of the following terms, which are not defined in Plaintiff's Interrogatories and which carry different meanings depending on the context in which they are used: "control," "supervise," "direct," "manage," "employee," "work," "hours worked," "required," "mandatory," and "penalties." SLG has endeavored, where possible, to respond based on a reasonable interpretation of these terms but does so without waiving its objection to the ambiguity inherent in Plaintiff's Interrogatories.
General Objection No. 6: Compound Interrogatories. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it is compound in nature, containing multiple discrete sub-parts that, if counted separately, would cause Plaintiff's Interrogatories to exceed the 25-interrogatory limit established by Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Several of Plaintiff's Interrogatories contain multiple distinct questions or requests joined together in a single interrogatory, each of which independently calls for investigation and response. SLG reserves the right to decline to respond to sub-parts of compound interrogatories that cause the total number of interrogatories to exceed the permissible limit.
General Objection No. 7: Temporal Scope. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information outside the applicable statute of limitations period. Plaintiff's claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The applicable statute of limitations for FLSA claims is two years for non-willful violations and three years for willful violations. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). SLG denies that any alleged violation was willful, and accordingly maintains that the applicable limitations period is two years. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on April 30, 2025. Even assuming arguendo a three-year lookback period, the maximum relevant period extends no earlier than April 30, 2022. SLG objects to any Interrogatory that seeks information predating April 30, 2022, as outside the scope of discoverable information.
General Objection No. 8: Confidential Business Information. SLG objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks proprietary, confidential, trade secret, or competitively sensitive business information, including but not limited to financial data, revenue figures, profit margins, operational protocols, pricing structures, driver compensation rates, customer information, and details regarding SLG's proprietary RouteSync dispatch platform. SLG will produce such information, if at all, only subject to an appropriate protective order negotiated between the parties or entered by the Court pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are currently negotiating a Stipulated Protective Order, and SLG reserves the right to withhold confidential business information pending entry of such an order.
General Objection No. 9: Incorporation of General Objections. The foregoing General Objections (Nos. 1 through 8) are hereby incorporated by reference into each of the specific Objections and Responses set forth below as if fully stated therein. The failure to restate any General Objection in response to a particular Interrogatory shall not constitute a waiver of that General Objection, and no specific response shall be deemed an admission that the Interrogatory is proper, relevant, proportional, or otherwise appropriate.
SPECIFIC INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
State the full name of each individual who performed delivery driving services for Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. pursuant to an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement at any time from April 30, 2022 to the present, and for each such individual, state the dates during which the individual performed such services, the hub or hubs to which the individual was assigned, and the version(s) of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement the individual signed.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly burdensome. The Interrogatory seeks the identification and detailed service history of approximately 1,187 unique individuals who signed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements and performed delivery driving services for SLG at one or more of its 14 distribution hubs across four states during a period spanning approximately three years. Compiling the requested information for each of these individuals, including precise dates of service, hub assignments (some drivers were assigned to multiple hubs over time), and ICOA versions signed, requires a significant expenditure of time, resources, and effort that is not proportional to the needs of the case, particularly at this stage of the litigation.
Second, this Interrogatory is premature to the extent it seeks collective-wide information prior to the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. The Court has not yet determined whether this case is appropriate for collective treatment, and discovery directed at identifying all members of the putative collective should be deferred pending such determination.
Third, SLG objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks personal identifying information of non-party individuals without an appropriate protective order in place to govern the use and dissemination of such information.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
SLG's records reflect that approximately 1,187 unique individuals signed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") and performed delivery driving services for SLG at one or more of its 14 distribution hubs during the period from April 30, 2022 through the present date. These individuals were engaged at various times and for varying durations during this period. Some individuals performed services continuously throughout the relevant period, while others performed services for shorter durations or intermittently.
SLG will identify these individuals by name, hub assignment(s), ICOA version(s) signed, and approximate dates of active service in a supplemental production, subject to the entry of a protective order governing the use and dissemination of personal identifying information. SLG anticipates that this supplemental production will require a reasonable period of time to compile given the volume of records across 14 hubs and multiple database systems.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Identify each version of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement used by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. during the period from April 30, 2022 to the present, and for each version, state the date it was adopted, the date it was superseded (if applicable), and describe all material differences between each successive version.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory calls for legal conclusions regarding what constitutes a "material difference" between versions of the ICOA. The determination of whether a particular contractual provision constitutes a "material" difference is a legal characterization, not a factual statement, and SLG should not be required to make legal characterizations in its Interrogatory responses.
Second, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Each version of the ICOA was drafted and revised with the assistance and under the direction of SLG's outside employment counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP. Communications between SLG and Pennfield & Daye LLP regarding the drafting, revision, and purpose of the ICOAs, including the rationale for any revisions, are protected by the attorney-client privilege and will not be disclosed. A privilege log identifying such communications has been or will be served in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order and Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Three versions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement have been used by SLG during the relevant period:
ICOA v1.0 was originally drafted in 2018 by SLG's outside employment counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, and was adopted for use company-wide at that time. ICOA v1.0 was the first standardized independent contractor agreement used by SLG across its distribution hubs. This version of the ICOA classified delivery drivers as independent contractors, established per-delivery payment rates pursuant to an attached rate schedule, required the use of Stonefield-branded uniforms and vehicle placards during the performance of delivery services, mandated the installation and use of SLG-provided GPS telematics devices in driver vehicles, set required daily delivery windows of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and included a 12-month, 50-mile-radius post-termination non-compete clause. ICOA v1.0 did not contain an arbitration clause or a class/collective action waiver.
ICOA v2.0 was revised and adopted in August 2020. This version retained substantially all of the terms of ICOA v1.0, with certain operational updates addressing delivery procedures, customer communication protocols, and administrative matters. Like ICOA v1.0, ICOA v2.0 did not contain an arbitration clause or a class/collective action waiver. SLG objects to further characterization of the differences between v1.0 and v2.0 as calling for legal conclusions regarding materiality.
ICOA v3.0 was revised and adopted in January 2023. This version included the addition of a mandatory individual arbitration clause with a class/collective action waiver, which requires that all disputes between the driver and SLG arising out of or relating to the ICOA or the parties' relationship be resolved through binding individual arbitration and waives the driver's right to participate in any class, collective, or representative action. ICOA v3.0 also included updates to the subcontracting provisions, modifications to the performance review process, and other operational and administrative updates. Approximately 640 drivers executed ICOA v3.0 during the relevant period.
Copies of all three ICOA versions (v1.0, v2.0, and v3.0) have been or will be produced in SLG's document production in this action, designated as Bates Nos. SLG-00001 through SLG-00087.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
State the total number of drivers who signed each version of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement and, for each driver, identify which version(s) of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement the driver signed.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, this Interrogatory is premature to the extent it seeks collective-wide information regarding all 1,187 drivers and their respective ICOA versions prior to the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
Second, this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome to the extent it requires SLG to compile a driver-by-driver cross-reference of ICOA versions across 14 hubs, multiple database systems, and a three-year time period. Some drivers signed multiple versions of the ICOA during the relevant period as they transitioned from earlier versions to ICOA v3.0.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Of the approximately 1,187 unique individuals who performed delivery driving services for SLG during the relevant period, approximately 640 signed ICOA v3.0 (the January 2023 revision containing the mandatory individual arbitration clause and class/collective action waiver). The remaining approximately 547 drivers operated under ICOA v1.0 or ICOA v2.0 during the relevant period and did not sign ICOA v3.0. Some drivers who were active during the relevant period initially operated under ICOA v1.0 or v2.0 and subsequently executed ICOA v3.0 upon its adoption; SLG is compiling records to identify these individuals.
With respect to the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, SLG's records reflect that he signed ICOA v1.0 (the original 2018 version) and did not sign ICOA v2.0 or ICOA v3.0 at any time during his service with SLG.
SLG is compiling a hub-by-hub breakdown of the number of drivers who signed each ICOA version and will supplement this response upon completion of that review.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Describe in detail the process by which Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, including any legal analysis, review, or advice obtained in connection with such classification.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege. SLG obtained legal advice from its outside employment counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, regarding the classification of delivery drivers as independent contractors, including advice regarding the legal standards applicable to independent contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, applicable state wage-and-hour laws, and the Internal Revenue Code. Communications between SLG and Pennfield & Daye LLP regarding such classification are privileged and will not be disclosed. A privilege log identifying such communications has been or will be served pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, SLG objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is vague with respect to the term "process." It is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks information about the initial decision to classify drivers as independent contractors, the ongoing maintenance of that classification, the legal analysis underlying the classification, or some other aspect of SLG's business practices.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
SLG has classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors since the company's founding in 2011. The classification was based on the nature of the working relationship between SLG and its drivers, the terms and conditions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreements governing that relationship, and the economic realities of the driver arrangements, including, among other factors, the drivers' ownership and provision of their own vehicles and equipment, the drivers' ability to accept or decline delivery assignments, the drivers' right to subcontract work to qualified third parties, and the drivers' opportunity for profit or loss based on their own business decisions and efficiency.
In connection with the classification decision, SLG retained Pennfield & Daye LLP, 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1400, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, to advise on driver classification and to draft the template Independent Contractor Operating Agreement in 2018. Pennfield & Daye LLP has continued to advise SLG on classification matters and assisted with revisions to the ICOA in August 2020 and January 2023. Any further detail regarding the substance of the legal advice received from Pennfield & Daye LLP, including any memoranda, analyses, or recommendations provided by counsel, is withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
Describe the RouteSync dispatch platform, including its functionality, how delivery assignments are made through the platform, the degree of driver discretion in accepting or declining individual deliveries, and any consequences imposed on drivers for declining deliveries.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks proprietary and confidential business information regarding RouteSync, which is SLG's proprietary dispatch and logistics management platform. The internal architecture, algorithms, and detailed functionality of RouteSync constitute trade secrets and confidential business information. SLG will respond to this Interrogatory to the extent reasonably necessary to address the claims at issue, but objects to any request for disclosure of RouteSync's proprietary technical specifications or source code.
Second, SLG objects to the characterization of "consequences" as vague and argumentative. The term "consequences" implies a punitive framework that is inconsistent with the independent contractor relationship at issue.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
RouteSync is a proprietary dispatch and logistics management platform owned and operated by SLG. RouteSync is used to coordinate and manage delivery assignments across SLG's 14 distribution hubs. The platform serves as the central mechanism through which available delivery assignments are communicated to drivers and through which drivers may accept assignments.
Available deliveries are posted on the RouteSync platform, and drivers may review available assignments and accept or decline individual delivery assignments based on their own preferences, schedules, and availability. Drivers are not required to accept every delivery offered to them through the platform, and they retain discretion regarding which assignments to accept and which to decline. However, under the terms of the ICOA, drivers are subject to a minimum acceptance rate of 85% of offered deliveries per rolling 30-day period. This minimum acceptance rate is a contractual term designed to ensure reliable service to SLG's customers and maintain operational efficiency.
If a driver's acceptance rate falls below the 85% threshold in a rolling 30-day period, the driver may be subject to a performance review. A performance review is an informational discussion between the driver and the hub manager regarding the driver's availability, commitment level, and interest in continuing to perform delivery services for SLG. Performance reviews are not disciplinary proceedings and are conducted in a manner consistent with the independent contractor relationship.
Drivers who accept delivery assignments retain discretion to organize and sequence their accepted deliveries within the applicable daily delivery window of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. RouteSync provides suggested routing to assist drivers in organizing their deliveries efficiently, but drivers may deviate from suggested routes based on their own judgment of traffic conditions, road conditions, construction, weather, and efficiency considerations.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Describe Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s GPS tracking program, including the type of telematics hardware used, the data collected, how the data is used, and whether drivers may disable or modify the GPS tracking during or outside of delivery hours.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks proprietary and confidential information regarding SLG's telematics technology, data collection practices, and analytics capabilities. The specific telematics hardware, data architecture, and analytical applications employed by SLG constitute confidential business information.
Second, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it seeks information about all tracking capabilities, data uses, and data retention practices beyond what is relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this litigation.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
SLG provides telematics devices to drivers performing delivery services under ICOAs. The telematics devices are installed in the delivery vehicles used by drivers and are provided by SLG at no cost to the driver. The devices collect GPS location data, vehicle speed data, and engine diagnostic information (including engine on/off status and mileage). The telematics devices are standard commercial fleet-tracking units; SLG objects to disclosing the specific make and model of the telematics hardware as confidential business information at this time, subject to a protective order.
The telematics data collected by the devices is transmitted to SLG's systems and is used primarily for the following purposes: (a) logistics optimization, including route efficiency analysis and delivery coordination; (b) delivery confirmation, including verification that deliveries were completed at the correct delivery address; (c) customer communication, including providing estimated delivery times and real-time delivery tracking to customers; and (d) safety monitoring, including monitoring of vehicle speed and driving patterns for safety purposes.
Drivers are not permitted to disable, tamper with, modify, or obstruct the telematics devices while performing deliveries for SLG. This requirement is set forth in the ICOA and is characterized by SLG as a safety and service-quality requirement necessary to ensure reliable delivery confirmation, customer service, and driver safety. The GPS data is retained in SLG's systems and is available for analysis.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Describe all training required of drivers, including initial training, ongoing or refresher training, the content and duration of such training, and whether attendance at training sessions is mandatory.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it seeks detailed information about every training topic, module, or session that has been offered or made available to drivers during the relevant period. Responding with granular detail regarding every training topic across all 14 hubs would be unduly burdensome.
Second, SLG objects to the characterization of training as "required" or "mandatory" as argumentative and assuming the existence of an employment relationship. The terms of driver participation in training and orientation programs are set forth in the ICOA and are consistent with the independent contractor relationship between SLG and its drivers.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
SLG offers drivers an initial orientation program of approximately 16 hours in duration. The initial orientation covers the following subjects: safety protocols applicable to delivery driving operations, delivery procedures and best practices, customer service standards and expectations, instruction on the use of the RouteSync dispatch platform and handheld delivery scanners, and SLG's operational expectations and quality standards. The initial orientation program is typically conducted over two consecutive days at the driver's assigned distribution hub.
In addition to the initial orientation, SLG offers quarterly refresher sessions of approximately four hours in duration. These refresher sessions address updates to safety protocols, seasonal delivery considerations, new RouteSync features, and other operational topics.
These training and orientation programs are designed to ensure quality of service and safety standards across SLG's delivery operations. Completion of the initial orientation is a prerequisite to the driver receiving access credentials for the RouteSync platform and beginning to accept delivery assignments. SLG characterizes these programs as part of its quality assurance framework applicable to independent contractor relationships and consistent with SLG's right as a principal to set quality and safety standards for the services performed on its behalf.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Describe Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s uniform and branding requirements for drivers, including whether drivers are required to wear SLG-branded uniforms, display vehicle placards or decals, or carry SLG identification badges while performing delivery services.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
SLG objects to the extent the term "required" is vague in the context of independent contractor relationships. The ICOA sets forth certain expectations regarding professional appearance and brand presentation, and these are contractual terms agreed upon by the driver as part of the independent contractor relationship, not directives imposed in an employer-employee context.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Pursuant to the terms of the ICOA, drivers performing delivery services for SLG are expected to present a professional appearance consistent with SLG's brand standards. The ICOA provides that drivers will wear Stonefield-branded uniforms, display SLG vehicle placards on their delivery vehicles, and carry SLG identification badges during the performance of delivery services. These requirements are designed to maintain customer confidence, ensure a professional and consistent brand presentation, and facilitate identification of authorized delivery personnel at customer locations.
SLG provides uniforms, vehicle placards, and identification badges to drivers at no cost to the driver. SLG does not charge drivers for these items, nor does SLG deduct any amounts from driver payments for the provision of these items. The uniforms, placards, and badges remain the property of SLG, and drivers are expected to return them upon termination of the ICOA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Describe Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s subcontracting policy, including whether drivers may subcontract their delivery assignments to third parties, the process for obtaining subcontracting approval, and the total number of subcontracting requests submitted, approved, and denied during the period from April 30, 2022 to the present.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks a complete accounting of all subcontracting requests submitted, approved, and denied across all 14 distribution hubs and approximately 1,187 drivers during a three-year period. Subcontracting requests are handled at the hub level, and compiling a comprehensive accounting would require a manual review of records at each hub.
Second, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information that is not in SLG's possession, custody, or control, to the extent any drivers may have engaged subcontractors without following the required approval process.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Under all three versions of the ICOA (v1.0, v2.0, and v3.0), drivers are contractually permitted to subcontract their delivery assignments to qualified third parties, subject to obtaining prior written approval from SLG. The subcontracting provision is a key feature of the independent contractor relationship and reflects that drivers are engaged as independent businesses, not employees.
The approval process for subcontracting requires the driver to submit a request to the hub manager at the driver's assigned distribution hub, identifying the proposed subcontractor and providing the subcontractor's relevant credentials. The proposed subcontractor must meet SLG's safety and vehicle standards, including the requirement that the subcontractor operate a cargo van or box truck of model year 2015 or newer that passes SLG's safety inspection, and must complete a background check. Upon approval, the subcontractor may perform deliveries on behalf of the driver.
SLG is in the process of compiling records regarding the number of subcontracting requests submitted, approved, and denied during the relevant period across all 14 hubs. Based on a preliminary review of records at select hubs, subcontracting requests have been infrequent. SLG will supplement this response with specific numerical data upon completion of its review.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Identify all distribution hubs operated by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. during the period from April 30, 2022 to the present, and for each hub, state the hub's location, the approximate number of drivers assigned to each hub during the relevant period, and the name and title of the hub manager at each hub.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the extent it seeks collective-wide operational information regarding all 14 distribution hubs prior to the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. The operational details of each hub, including driver volume and management personnel, are relevant primarily to the conditional certification analysis and to SLG's position that drivers across different hubs are not similarly situated.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG identifies the following distribution hubs operated during the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present):
SLG is compiling the names and titles of hub managers at each location and will provide this information in a supplemental response. SLG notes that some hubs experienced changes in hub management during the relevant period, and the supplemental response will identify all hub managers who served during the relevant period.
SLG further notes that hub operations, delivery types (standard last-mile delivery, regional freight, and white-glove delivery services), service areas, customer composition, delivery volume, and the degree of driver autonomy vary materially across hubs. These operational differences are relevant to the conditional certification analysis and to SLG's defenses.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Describe the operational differences between Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s distribution hubs, including differences in delivery types, service areas, customer base, driver volume, and management practices at each hub.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Interrogatory effectively asks SLG to describe the complete operational profile of each of its 14 distribution hubs, encompassing delivery types, service areas, customer base, driver volume, and management practices. Providing a comprehensive response would require the compilation and synthesis of voluminous operational data from across SLG's entire network and would constitute a significant burden.
Second, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as premature prior to the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, to the extent it seeks hub-by-hub operational details for the purpose of collective-wide analysis. SLG intends to address the operational differences among its hubs in its opposition to conditional certification, and discovery on this topic should be sequenced accordingly.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
SLG's 14 distribution hubs vary materially in their operations, and these differences are significant to the claims and defenses in this case. In general terms:
Certain hubs, including HUB-03 (Houston), HUB-02 (Dallas), HUB-01 (Fort Worth), and HUB-04 (San Antonio), serve dense metropolitan areas and handle predominantly last-mile residential delivery — that is, the final leg of delivery from a local distribution hub to an individual consumer's residence. These hubs handle high volumes of relatively small packages and have a larger driver population. The service areas for these hubs are geographically compact, and drivers assigned to these hubs tend to make a higher number of individual deliveries per day over shorter distances.
Other hubs, including HUB-10 (Little Rock), HUB-13 (Lubbock), HUB-11 (Shreveport), and HUB-14 (Corpus Christi), serve more rural and geographically dispersed delivery areas. These hubs handle a greater proportion of regional freight deliveries and white-glove delivery services (which involve the delivery, assembly, and installation of large items such as furniture and appliances). Drivers assigned to these hubs tend to make fewer deliveries per day over longer distances, and individual deliveries may require more time and effort due to the nature of the items delivered and the distance between delivery locations.
Delivery volume, average delivery distances, customer mix (residential versus commercial), driver density, per-delivery rates (which vary based on delivery type, weight, and distance), and hub-specific operational practices differ significantly across hubs. Hub managers exercise localized judgment regarding scheduling flexibility, delivery allocation methods, performance management practices, and other operational matters, reflecting the distinct needs and characteristics of each hub's service area.
These material operational differences demonstrate that drivers across different hubs are not similarly situated, as their day-to-day working conditions, delivery responsibilities, autonomy, and compensation structures vary materially based on hub assignment and delivery type. SLG respectfully refers Plaintiff to the Declaration of Trevor Sandoval, Vice President of Operations of SLG, submitted in support of SLG's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, for further detail regarding operational differences across hubs.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
State the per-delivery payment rates paid to drivers during the period from April 30, 2022 to the present, including the method of calculating per-delivery rates and any variations in rates by hub, delivery type, or individual driver.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks a complete rate history for all approximately 1,187 drivers across all 14 hubs during the entire relevant period. Per-delivery rates vary based on multiple factors, and compiling a comprehensive rate history for all drivers would require extensive data compilation.
Second, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks proprietary pricing and compensation information, the disclosure of which could be competitively harmful to SLG. SLG will respond subject to an appropriate protective order.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Drivers performing delivery services for SLG are compensated on a per-delivery basis pursuant to the terms of their respective ICOAs. Drivers are not paid hourly wages, salaries, or any other form of time-based compensation. Per-delivery rates range from $14.50 to $38.00 per delivery, with the specific rate for any given delivery varying based on the following factors: (a) package weight; (b) delivery distance from the distribution hub to the delivery location; and (c) delivery type — specifically, whether the delivery is a standard last-mile residential delivery, a regional freight delivery, or a white-glove delivery service. White-glove deliveries command the highest per-delivery rates due to the additional time, effort, and specialized service involved.
The applicable per-delivery rates are set forth in the rate schedule attached as an exhibit to each driver's ICOA. The rate schedule is a standard schedule applicable to all drivers at a given hub and for a given delivery type; drivers do not individually negotiate per-delivery rates. Rate schedules have been updated periodically during the relevant period to reflect changes in operational costs and market conditions.
SLG will produce representative rate schedules for each hub and each delivery type in its document production, subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order governing the use and dissemination of confidential compensation information.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13
State the average weekly gross compensation paid to drivers during the period from April 30, 2022 to the present, broken down by distribution hub.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome and premature prior to the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. The Interrogatory seeks hub-by-hub average weekly compensation data for approximately 1,187 drivers over a three-year period, which would require significant data compilation and analysis.
Second, SLG objects to the extent this Interrogatory calls for SLG to create compilations of data that are not maintained in the ordinary course of its business. SLG maintains individual driver pay records showing per-delivery payments and total payments by pay period, but does not maintain pre-compiled summaries of average weekly gross compensation by hub as a routine business record.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
SLG maintains pay records for individual drivers reflecting per-delivery payments and total compensation paid by pay period. SLG does not maintain pre-compiled summaries or reports of average weekly gross compensation on a hub-by-hub basis as a routine business record.
With respect to the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, SLG's records reflect that his average weekly gross pay for calendar year 2023 was approximately $1,247. Delano's pay varied week to week depending on the number of deliveries he accepted and completed, the type of deliveries, and the applicable per-delivery rates.
SLG is not in a position at this time to provide hub-by-hub averages for all approximately 1,187 drivers without undertaking a significant data compilation effort involving the extraction, aggregation, and analysis of individual pay records across 14 hubs and multiple pay periods. SLG will work with Plaintiff's counsel in good faith to agree on a reasonable scope of data production that is proportional to the needs of the case and responsive to the claims at issue.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14
State the average number of hours per week that drivers worked during the period from April 30, 2022 to the present, and identify the data sources used to track or record the hours that drivers worked.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to the phrase "hours per week that drivers worked" as assuming the existence of an employment relationship and as assuming that drivers are employees whose hours are tracked in the manner applicable to employees under the FLSA. SLG classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors, and independent contractors are not subject to the FLSA's hour-tracking requirements. SLG did not track and was not required to track "hours worked" in the sense that term is used under the FLSA.
Second, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks hours data for all approximately 1,187 drivers across 14 hubs over a three-year period. Even to the extent proxy data exists (such as RouteSync dispatch data and GPS telematics data), compiling and analyzing such data to determine average weekly hours for all drivers would require extensive effort.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Because SLG classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors under the terms of the ICOAs, SLG does not maintain traditional time-and-attendance records or timesheets for its drivers. SLG did not require drivers to clock in, clock out, or otherwise record their hours in the manner applicable to employees, and SLG did not track "hours worked" in the sense that term is used under the FLSA.
However, SLG does maintain certain data that reflects the time during which drivers were engaged in delivery-related activity. Specifically, SLG maintains: (a) RouteSync dispatch data, which records when delivery assignments are offered to a driver, when assignments are accepted by a driver, and when assignments are marked as completed; and (b) GPS telematics data, which records when the driver's vehicle is in active use, including engine on/off times, location data, and mileage. This data can be used as a proxy for the time drivers spent engaged in delivery-related activity, though it does not capture all time that might be considered "hours worked" under the FLSA (such as time spent loading vehicles, waiting for assignments, or performing administrative tasks).
With respect to the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, GPS and RouteSync data indicate that Delano was engaged in delivery-related activity an average of approximately 58 hours per week during calendar year 2023. SLG notes that this figure represents time during which Delano's vehicle was in active use for SLG deliveries as reflected in telematics data and RouteSync records, and does not necessarily represent the total hours Delano devoted to his delivery business.
SLG objects to any attempt to extrapolate Delano's hours to all drivers, as the time drivers spend engaged in delivery-related activity varies materially from driver to driver, week to week, and hub to hub, depending on the number of assignments accepted, delivery type, geographic area, and individual driver preferences.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
Describe whether and how Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. monitored or evaluated driver performance, including any metrics, ratings, scorecards, or performance review processes used.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
First, SLG objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it seeks information about every metric, rating, or evaluation methodology used by SLG with respect to driver performance across all hubs during the entire relevant period.
Second, SLG objects to the extent the terms "monitored" and "evaluated" assume the existence of an employment relationship and imply a degree of supervision inconsistent with the independent contractor relationship at issue. SLG tracks certain performance metrics as part of its quality assurance framework, which is consistent with a principal's right to ensure the quality of services performed by an independent contractor.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Consistent with its quality assurance framework for independent contractor relationships, and consistent with a principal's right to ensure the quality of services performed on its behalf, SLG tracks certain performance metrics through the RouteSync platform. These metrics include: (a) delivery completion rate (the percentage of accepted deliveries successfully completed by the driver); (b) on-time delivery percentage (the percentage of deliveries completed within the applicable delivery window); (c) customer satisfaction ratings (based on customer feedback surveys following delivery); and (d) delivery acceptance rate (the percentage of offered delivery assignments accepted by the driver, relative to the 85% minimum acceptance rate set forth in the ICOA).
These metrics are available to hub managers through the RouteSync platform's reporting dashboard. Drivers whose delivery acceptance rate falls below the 85% minimum threshold in a rolling 30-day period may be subject to an informational performance review, as described in SLG's response to Interrogatory No. 5. Repeated poor customer satisfaction ratings, a pattern of late deliveries, or delivery failures (such as damaged packages or failed delivery attempts) may also trigger a review of the driver's status and may result in modification or termination of the ICOA.
SLG characterizes these performance metrics and review processes as quality and service standards applicable to the independent contractor relationship, rather than the type of ongoing supervision, direction, and control exercised by an employer over an employee.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
Describe all penalties, consequences, or adverse actions imposed on drivers for failing to meet Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s performance standards or requirements, including any reduction in delivery assignments, suspension of access to the RouteSync platform, or termination of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
SLG objects to the terms "penalties," "consequences," and "adverse actions" as vague, argumentative, and assuming the existence of an employment relationship. These terms imply a punitive disciplinary framework that is inconsistent with the contractual, arms-length independent contractor relationship between SLG and its drivers. The ICOA sets forth the terms governing the relationship, including the circumstances under which the agreement may be modified or terminated, and these are contractual provisions, not disciplinary measures.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
Under the terms of the ICOA, if a driver's delivery acceptance rate falls below the 85% minimum threshold in a rolling 30-day period, the driver may receive a performance review, which is an informational discussion between the driver and the hub manager. The purpose of the performance review is to discuss the driver's availability, interest in continuing to perform delivery services, and any obstacles or concerns affecting the driver's participation. Performance reviews are not disciplinary proceedings.
Continued failure to meet the 85% acceptance rate threshold, sustained customer complaints regarding delivery quality or professionalism, repeated late deliveries, or repeated delivery failures may result in reduced delivery assignments being offered to the driver through the RouteSync platform, or in termination of the ICOA. Late deliveries or deliveries that do not meet customer expectations may also independently result in reduced future delivery assignments, as SLG allocates delivery assignments based in part on historical performance, reliability, and customer satisfaction.
SLG characterizes these as contractual provisions governing the independent contractor relationship between SLG and its drivers. These provisions are consistent with a principal's right to ensure the quality of services provided by an independent contractor and to terminate a contractual relationship when the contractor's performance does not meet the agreed-upon standards. SLG's approach to performance management is consistent with the independent contractor arrangements used throughout the logistics and delivery industry.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17
State whether drivers were permitted to perform delivery services for other companies, delivery platforms, or logistics providers during the relevant period, and identify any restrictions contained in the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement or otherwise imposed by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. on such outside work.
Objections:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds, in addition to the General Objections incorporated herein:
SLG objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it seeks information about the outside engagements, employment, or business activities of all approximately 1,187 drivers, which is not within SLG's possession, custody, or control. SLG does not monitor, track, or maintain records of its drivers' work for other companies or delivery platforms, and does not have access to information regarding the scope or nature of its drivers' outside business activities.
Response:
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SLG responds as follows:
The ICOA does not prohibit drivers from performing delivery or other services for other companies, delivery platforms, or logistics providers during the term of the ICOA. Drivers are free to engage in other business activities, accept delivery assignments from other companies, and work for competing or non-competing delivery platforms concurrently with their performance of delivery services for SLG. SLG does not require exclusivity from its drivers.