Soto, et al. v. Castlerock Farming, et al.

Filing 96

ORDER Directing the Parties to File Supplemental Briefing signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/14/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

16

) Case No.: 1:09-cv-00701 AWI JLT
)
Plaintiffs,
) ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE
) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
v.
)
)
CASTLEROCK FARMING AND
)
TRANSPORT, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

17

On July 8, 2011, the Court found Plaintiffs established a prima facie showing of class

12
13
14
15

SILVESTRE SOTO, et al.,

18

certification because Plaintiffs demonstrated commonality and typicality through the testimony of

19

Silvestre Soto, Olga Galvan, class member Javier Garcia. (Doc. 61 at 8-10). Based upon this

20

finding, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel document production. (Id. at 9). In addition,

21

the Court and granted in part and denied in part non-party J.L. Padilla & Sons Labor Services, Inc.’s

22

motion to quash, finding “the documents sought in the subpoena duces tecum are relevant to

23

Plaintiffs’ action against Castlerock because Plaintiffs have established common questions of law

24

and fact to assert the class claims for which they seek discovery.” (Id. at 15). On November 1, 2011,

25

plaintiff Olga Galvan voluntarily dismissed the action leaving only Silvestre Soto as a named

26

plaintiff. (Doc. 93).

27

As a general rule, “[a]s long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, it possesses the

28

inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by
1

1

it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

2

2001) (citations omitted). This inherent power is consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil

3

Procedure, which provide: “[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates

4

fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at

5

any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and

6

liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

7

Because the Court’s finding that Plaintiffs stated a prima facie case for class certification was

8

influenced by Ms. Galvan’s status as a class representative and asserting “injuries similar to another

9

class member” (Doc. 61 at 9), the Court finds it is appropriate to exercise its inherent power to

10

reconsider the motions compelling document production and to quash the deposition subpoena. If

11

Plaintiffs are unable to state a prima facie case for class certification, they have the burden of

12

showing the discovery requested is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. See

13

Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding that when seeking discovery “to

14

aid the determination of whether a class action is maintainable, the plaintiff bears the burden of

15

advancing a prima facie showing that the class action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied

16

or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations”) (emphasis added).

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

18

1.

The parties SHALL provide supplemental briefing, no longer than 15 pages

19

(including exhibits) addressing:

20

i.

The effect, if any, of Ms. Galvan’s changed status from class representative to

21

putative class member on the motion to compel document production (Docs.

22

25, 29, 38-39) and the motion to quash (Doc. 24);

23

ii.

Whether, if Plaintiff is no longer able to state a prima facie case for class

24

certification as a result of Ms. Galvan’s dismissal, Plaintiff has established

25

that the requested discovery is likely to substantiate the class claims.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: December 14, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2