Akaosugi et al v. Benihana, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER ADDRESSING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER REQUEST FOR CLASS LIST re 42 Letter filed by Benihana National Corp., 41 Letter filed by Tetsuo Akaosugi, Hieu Nguyen (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

TETSUO AKAOSUGI, HIEU NGUYEN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,

Case No. 11-CV-01272 WHA
CLASS ACTION

13
Plaintiffs,

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADDRESSING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER
REQUEST FOR CLASS LIST

14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20

BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP.,
BENIHANA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
BENIHANA CARLSBAD CORP.,
BENIHANA ENCINO CORP., BENIHANA
MARINA CORP., BENIHANA ONTARIO
CORP., BENIHANA OF PUENTE HILLS
CORP., BENIHANA SUNRISE
CORPORATION,

[Assigned to Courtroom 8, Hon. William
Alsup]
Complaint Filed: February 14, 2011
Trial Date: October 9, 2012

Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
th

360 Post Street, 8 Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADDRESSING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER REQUEST FOR CLASS LIST

Case No. 11-CV-01272 WHA

1

Interrogatory No. 1 in Representative Plaintiff Tetsuo Akaosugi’s and Hieu Nguyen’s

2

(“Plaintiffs”) Interrogatories (Set One (A)) requested that Defendant Benihana National Corp.

3

(“Defendant”) identify “all Salaried Manager Class Members” by name, home address, telephone

4

number, email address, dates of employment, and facilities where they performed work.

5
6
7
8
9

In its response, Defendant raised various objections, including those based on third party
privacy, and, thereupon, declined to identify the putative class members.
On September 22, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a letter regarding the above-referenced discovery
dispute (Document No. 35).
Pursuant to the Court’s Order Setting Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Discovery Dispute (Document

10

No. 36), Defendant filed a letter on September 29, 2011 (Document No. 38) and the parties

11

appeared at a hearing on October 3, 2011.

12
13
14

Based upon the parties’ letter submissions, their counsels’ arguments at the October 3, 2011
hearing, and for good cause showing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

15
16
17
18

1. The parties shall proceed as set forth in the transcript from the October 3, 2011 hearing,
(Document. No. 39);
2. Within 5 business days of the date this Order is entered by the Court, Benihana National

19

Corp. shall provide Plaintiff with the names and corresponding restaurant locations for all

20

Salaried Managers who worked at any of Benihana National Corp.’s six Benihana branded,

21

teppanyaki-style restaurants in California (“Contact List”) since February 14, 2007;

22

3. Once a form of letter has been approved by the Court and the Contact List has been

23

provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel, they shall address a letter to each Salaried Manager on the

24

Contact List and deliver these letters to Defendant’s counsel;

25

4. Defendant’s counsel shall cause these letters to be delivered to the Salaried Managers

26

within 5 business days after the letters are delivered to Defendant’s counsel. As for former

27

Salaried Managers, Defendant shall mail such letters to their last known address;

28
MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
th

360 Post Street, 8 Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADDRESSING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER REQUEST FOR CLASS LIST

Case No. 11-CV-01272 WHA

1

5. As indicated in the transcript from the October 3, 2011 hearing neither Defendant nor its

2

counsel shall attempt in any way to dissuade putative class members from contacting

3

Plaintiffs’ counsel.; ;

4

6. In strict compliance with the Court’s instructions set forth at the hearing on October 13,

5

2011, plaintiffs’ counsel is permitted to go to the Benihana National Corp. locations where

6

Salaried Managers work to try to talk to them outside the restaurant so long as Plaintiffs’

7

counsel does not interfere with their work duties or Benihana business operations, and

8

informs the putative class members that they are under no obligation to talk to Plaintiffs’

9

counsel. Benihana is not obliged to provide time off to employees to meet with Plaintiffs’
counsel or space at any of its facilities for interviews;

10
11

7. Plaintiffs’ counsel may subpoena for deposition any Salaried Manager who declines to talk

12

with Plaintiffs’ counsel. If Defendant’s counsel declines to accept service of the subpoena

13

on the putative class member’s behalf, then Defendant’s counsel is required to give

14

Plaintiffs’ counsel the putative class member’s home address so that Plaintiffs’ counsel can

15

serve the subpoena;

16

8. The Contact List, and any contact information provided by Defendant’s counsel for

17

purposes of Plaintiffs’ service of a subpoena pursuant to this Order, shall be subject to the

18

terms of the Protective Order in this case and used only for purposes of the present lawsuit;

19
20
21

9.

Defendant is not presently required to provide contact information for Salaried Managers
at its subsidiaries, because the issue is not ripe for decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: October 13, 2011

24

____________________________
William Alsup
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26

Firmwide:104303216.1 062447.1005

27
28
MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
th

360 Post Street, 8 Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADDRESSING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER REQUEST FOR CLASS LIST

Case No. 11-CV-01272 WHA