Maciel et al v. Bar 20 Dairy, LLC

Filing 47

Order GRANTING the parties' stipulated request; Order extending class certification discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/16/2019. (Class Certification Discovery due by 11/15/2019)(Rosales, O.)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9

JOSE MACIEL and ELVIS BONILLA, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, and as “aggrieved employees” on
behalf of other “aggrieved employees” under
the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act
of 2004,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

v.

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
STIPULATED REQUEST
ORDER EXTENDING CLASS
CERTIFICATION DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
(Doc. 46)

BAR 20 DAIRY, LLC, a California limited
liability company,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

15
I.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Jose Maciel and Elvis Bonilla previously filed separate cases in Fresno County

18 Superior Court against Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
19 201 et seq., and California labor laws. (See Doc. 1 at 1–2.) The two cases were consolidated in
20 state court on April 27, 2016, alleging class action claims, and on July 7, 2017, Defendant removed
21 the case to this court. (See id.) On March 15, 2019, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting
22 the class certification deadline for September 30, 2019, and the deadline for filing for class
23 certification for December 13, 2019. (Doc. 41 at 2.) Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on
24 April 30, 2019. (Doc. 44.)
25

On August 13, 2019, the parties filed a “Stipulation Re Discovery of Putative Class Member

26 Identities and Contact Information. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the disclosure
27 of the personal information of putative class members appropriate and GRANTS the parties’
28 stipulated request.

1

II.
DISCUSSION
The stipulation states that during class certification discovery, Plaintiffs requested that

2
Defendant:
3
4
5
6
7
8

identify all its non-exempt employees in California during the relevant time period
of February 11, 2011 to the present, including all employees employed in the
following departments and/or job categories, or any like position(s): Breeders, Calf,
Corral Maintenance, Feed Push, Feeders, Fresh Cow, Hospital, Maintenance, Waste
Management, Maternity, Milkers, Farm Tractor and Equipment Drivers, Farm
Irrigators, and Farm Shop (the “Putative Class Members”).
(Doc. 46 at 3.) The parties met and conferred and agreed on a method of producing the information

9 that balances Plaintiffs’ need for the information and Defendant’s employees’ privacy rights. (Id.)
10 The parties propose that Defendant provide to a third-party administrator a list of all putative class
11 members and their names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers, and the administrator
12
13

mail a notice letter, (see id. at 7–9), to all the putative class members. (Id. at 3.)
The putative class members will then have an opportunity to “opt-out” of class certification

14
15

discovery by either mailing a postcard included with the notice letter, (see id. at 11), or by emailing

16 the administrator, within 30 days of the date of mailing. (Id. at 3–4.) No later than 45 days after
17 mailing the notice letters, the administrator will provide Plaintiffs with a list of all putative class
18 members who did not “opt-out” and their contact information, and provide to Defendant a list of all
19 the putative class members who did “opt-out.” (Id. at 4.) Finally, Plaintiffs will keep all information
20

discovered by this process confidential, shall use the information only for purposes of this litigation,

21
and shall return the information to Defendant or destroy it at the end of the case. (Id.)
22
23

The scope of pre-certification discovery in class actions is entirely within the discretion of

24 the district court. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009); see
25 also Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Company Inc., 310 F.R.D. 583, 588 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015).
26

“Disclosure of contact information for putative class members is a common practice in the

27

class action context.” Aldapa, 310 F.R.D. at 588 (citing Artis v. Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 352

28
2

1

(N.D. Cal. 2011); see also Talavera v. Sun Maid Growers of California, No. 1:15-cv-00842-AWI-

2 SAB, 2017 WL 495635, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (citing Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., No.
3 11-CV-1301-MMA DHB 2013 WL 2896884, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) (“[c]ontact
4 information on the putative class members is routinely allowed in precertification discovery.”).
5
6

The California Supreme Court has adopted a specific procedure to protect the privacy rights
of employees during pre-certification discovery. See Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior

7
8
9

Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 (2007). That procedure is an “opt-out
procedure, whereby employees would receive notice of the putative class action and the fact that

10 Plaintiffs were seeking their personal contact information. Employees could send written notice
11 that they do not want their contact information shared with the Plaintiffs’ attorneys.” Aldapa, 310
12 F.R.D. at 588 (citing Belaire-West, 149 Cal.App.4th at 561). Federal courts in California have
13

adopted the Belaire opt-out procedure in employment class actions. See id.; Nguyen v. Baxter

14
Healthcare Corp., 275 F.R.D. 503, 512 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09CV143615
16
17

AJB(WMC), 2011 WL 2413439, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2011).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to the contact information of putative class

18 members to substantiate class allegations and meet certification requirements, and the parties have
19 proposed the type of opt-out procedure that has been routinely accepted in federal and state courts
20 in California. See Artis v. Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 352 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011). The
21
22

procedure proposed by the parties is appropriate and sufficiently protects the privacy rights of
Defendant’s employees. This is especially true because the information requested is limited to basic

23
24

contact information, which is “less sensitive than ‘more intimate privacy interests such as compelled

25 disclosure of medical records and personal histories,’” and Plaintiffs have agreed to keep the
26 information confidential, use the information only for purposes of this litigation, and return or
27 destroy it at the end of the case. See Salgado v. O’Lakes, No. 1:13-cv-0798-LJO-SMS, 2014 WL
28

7272784, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014) (quoting Artis, 276 F.R.D. at 353). Finally, the Court
3

1

finds the use of a third-party administrator appropriate as well. See id.
In view of September 30, 2019 class certification discovery deadline, the Court will sua

2

3 sponte extend the discovery period to allow the parties sufficient time to complete the procedure
4 outlined in their stipulation and any further discovery needed after Plaintiffs’ receipt of the contact
5

information.

6
III.

7

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

8

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

9

1. The parties’ stipulated request, (Doc. 46), is GRANTED.
2. Defendant shall produce the list of putative class members and their contact information

10

11 to Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulation, (Doc. 46).
3. The class certification discovery deadline is hereby extended to November 15, 2019. All

12

13 other deadlines in the Scheduling Order, (Doc. 41), remain unchanged.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated:
17

August 16, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

.