Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 101

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 82 MOTION TO IDENTIFY CLASS MEMBERS by Hon. William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
PATRICIA SUE ADKINS, et al.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO IDENTIFY CLASS
MEMBERS

v.
9
APPLE INC, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 82, 88

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiffs Patricia Sue Adkins, Jennifer Galindo, and Fabrienne English seek

14
15

precertification discovery to identity class members because plaintiffs Adkins and Galindo may

16

prove inadequate class representatives or withdraw for other reasons. The motion is DENIED

17

because it is a procedurally improper discovery motion, premature, and lacks merit.
BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiffs allege that Apple represents that Apple service plans entitled plaintiffs to new

19
20

replacement devices and parts when in fact Apple uses secondhand replacement devices and parts.

21

Plaintiffs allege that they would not have purchased the service plans but for this alleged

22

misrepresentation. They have sued Apple for violations of various consumer protection statutes

23

and fraud.1 They seek to represent a class of:

24
25
26
27
28

1

On July 3, 2014, I granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first
amended complaint. Dkt. No. 78. I dismissed plaintiffs’ second (breach of warranty), third
(violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act), and eighth (unjust enrichment) causes of
action without leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action (violations of the Secondhand
Merchandise Labeling Law) was dismissed without leave to amend as to plaintiffs Adkins and
Galindo, but survived as to plaintiff English.

All individual persons in the United States who, for purposes other
than resale, purchased Class Devices manufactured by APPLE
and/or Extended Warranties sold by APPLE, who have not returned
them or received a refund.

1
2
3

FAC ¶ 67 [Dkt. No. 38].
On July 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Identify Class Members. Dkt. No. 82.

4
5

Plaintiffs seek the identification of additional class members in case named plaintiffs Adkins and

6

Galindo are disqualified or in case Adkins withdraws from the case for health reasons. Plaintiffs

7

have not indicated any reason that English may need to be replaced.
Plaintiffs state that plaintiffs’ counsel, Renee Kennedy, has a prior relationship with

8
9

Adkins and Galindo. Specifically, plaintiffs’ motion2 states that
Adkins had done some transcription work for a book written by
Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s children, and began keeping the calendar for
said counsel until Adkins’s health failed her. Galindo is a contract
paralegal who works for Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Renee Kennedy).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Mot. at 2. Both Adkins and Galindo purchased the Apple devices that form the basis for their

13

allegations on October 30, 2013. FAC ¶¶ 34, 42. Plaintiffs claim that Adkins and Galindo

14

purchased the Apple devices on the same day because “Plaintiffs’ Counsel (Renee Kennedy) had

15

given the two Named Plaintiffs small monetary gifts to thank them for their excellent work and to

16

use however they wished.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that their counsel’s prior relationships with

17

Adkins and Galindo do not create conflicts of interest or other grounds for disqualification. Id.

18

Nonetheless, they state that “it is understood that the Court may choose to disallow Plaintiffs’

19

Counsel from representing said Plaintiffs in this action” and they seek discovery of the identity of

20

other potential plaintiffs in case any of the named plaintiffs are disqualified.

21

Plaintiffs also state that

22

Adkins is of old age and poor health, and has lost two siblings in
under a year. Therefore, Adkins may need a replacement at a later
date anyway; therefore, it is important that additional senior Class
Representative Plaintiffs be added to the suit to cover the possibility
that Adkins’ health deteriorates further, especially because Adkins’
is needed to represent the class of seniors in this suit. Since health
issues and death are prevalent amongst seniors, multiple Class
Representatives in this class are warranted.

23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Plaintiffs did not provide declarations substantiating these relationships or any other facts
referenced in their motion.
2

1
2

Id.
Plaintiffs propounded a request for production on Apple on July 18, 2014, requesting all

3

communications with potential class members. Mot. at 3; Ex. D. They filed the present motion to

4

identify class members three days later, on July 21, 2014. Acknowledging that the motion was

5

filed before Apple was required to respond to request for production, plaintiffs state that “it is

6

highly unlikely that the information will be produced by the production deadline and without

7

Order of the Court.” Mot. at 3.

8
9

Apple requested that plaintiffs withdraw their motion on the grounds that it did not comply
with the procedures governing discovery motions, including meeting and conferring with
opposing counsel and filing a joint discovery letter. See Dkt. No. 89 (plaintiffs’ statement to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court regarding alleged discovery dispute). Plaintiffs did not withdraw their motion, arguing that

12

it was not a discovery motion because the parties require guidance from the Court regarding the

13

form of notice and because the plaintiffs ask that the Court order Apple to bear the costs of the

14

notice. Id. Plaintiffs also argue that even if the motion was considered a discovery motion, the

15

plaintiffs did attempt to confer with Apple’s counsel prior to filing the motion. Id.

16

Apple filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion after plaintiffs refused to withdraw it. Dkt.

17

No. 90. Apple argues that the motion is procedurally improper and, in any event, should be denied

18

on the merits. Apple also argues that the proposed notice is improper and that Apple should not be

19

required to pay the costs of any notice.

20

In their reply brief, plaintiffs state that “[t]o the extent that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Identify

21

Class Members was apparently based only on the possibility of the Named Plaintiffs being

22

disqualified, Plaintiffs wish to clarify their position. Plaintiffs also seek precertification discovery

23

in order to aid in the class certification process, not only to discover potential substitute plaintiffs.”

24

Reply at 5 [Dkt. No. 93].

25

Not surprisingly, in response to this seemingly new basis for plaintiffs’ motion, Apple

26

apparently informed plaintiffs that they sought to seek leave to file a surreply. Before they did

27

that, however, plaintiffs filed a Statement to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Proposed Motion

28

for Leave to File a Surreply. Dkt. No. 96. In their Statement, plaintiffs preemptively argue why
3

1

Apple should not be allowed to file a surreply. In response, Apple filed a short statement stating

2

that Apple would not file a surreply but would instead address the new arguments raised in

3

plaintiffs’ reply at the hearing on the underlying motion. Dkt. No. 97.
DISCUSSION

4

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. It is procedurally improper, premature, and rejected on the

5
6

merits.

7

I.

8
9
10

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS A DISCOVERY MOTION AND DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH THE RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING DISCOVERY MOTIONS
Plaintiffs’ motion states that “Plaintiffs’ Counsel seeks discovery of the identity of other

potential plaintiffs who are part of the affected class.” Mot. at 3; see also id. (plaintiffs are
“asking the Court to order Apple to provide a list of potential class members”). Plaintiffs’ motion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

is unambiguously a discovery motion and is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37,
12

Civil Local Rule 37, and the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.3

13
14
15

Plaintiff argues that this is not a discovery motion because “[e]ven if Defendants hand over
the requested discovery documents, the parties will still need a hearing” in order to receive
“guidance from the Court as to the form and language of the class notice, and further, requests the

16
Court to Order that Defendants bear the cost of the proposed notice to be sent to potential class
17

members.” Dkt. No. 89. Plaintiffs’ reasoning has no support. A motion that seeks discovery is a

18
discovery motion; the purported need for a hearing does not convert a discovery motion into a
19
non-discovery motion. If a discovery motion necessitates a hearing, the Court will schedule one.
20

See Judge Orrick’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, § 4 Discovery Disputes (“The Court will

21
advise the parties of the need, if any, for more formal briefing or a hearing, pursuant to Civil Local
22
Rule 7-1(b).”). Notably, the cases that plaintiffs cite in support of their merits argument
23
characterized the underlying orders as discovery orders. See, e.g., Starbucks Corp. v. Superior
24
25
26

Court, 194 Cal. App. 4th 820, 823 (2011) (“We reverse the discovery order.”); CashCall, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 159 Cal. App. 4th 273, 285 (2008) (“review of a trial court’s discovery rulings is
governed by the abuse of discretion standard”) (internal brackets and citations omitted).

27
28

3

Available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/whoorders
4

Plaintiffs also argue that this is not a discovery motion because it is a “request for

1
2

precertification notice, which is allowed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(B).”

3

Reply at 2. Plaintiffs are mistaken. Rule 23(d)(1)(B) authorizes the Court, “[i]n conducting an

4

action under this rule,” to issue orders required “to protect class members and fairly conduct the

5

action.” No class has been certified here. There is therefore no Rule 23 action, nor any class

6

members. Indeed, in the order cited by defendants, Roshandel v. Chertoff, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1194,

7

1205 (W.D. Wash. 2008) amended in part, 07-cv-1739MJP, 2008 WL 2275558 (W.D. Wash. June

8

3, 2008), the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and noted that Rule

9

23(d)(1)(B) authorized the court to require notice and the right to opt-out to the certified class.
For the reasons stated below, this motion is denied on the merits. However, should

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

plaintiffs at some point seek similar relief, they shall do so following the rules and procedures

12

governing discovery disputes.

13

II.

14

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS PREMATURE
There are three named plaintiffs: Adkins, Galindo, and English. Plaintiffs’ motion is

15

premised on the need to find substitutes in the event that Adkins or Galindo or disqualified as

16

named representatives based on their relationship to plaintiffs’ counsel, and in the event that

17

“Adkins’ health deteriorates further.” Mot. at 2. However, while Apple may rationally question

18

the propriety of plaintiffs’ counsel representing plaintiffs who purchased the products at issue with

19

funds received from plaintiffs’ counsel, that issue has not been raised to the Court. Apple states in

20

its opposition that:

21
22
23

Adkins and Galindo have not been deposed yet, and the parties are
nowhere near asking the Court to make a determination as to their
adequacy as class representatives. If at some point Adkins and
Galindo are no longer viable class representatives, it may then be
appropriate for Plaintiffs to obtain discovery of some suitably
defined limited group of putative class members.

24
Reply at 9. Apple is correct. At this point, Adkins and Galindo are still named plaintiffs. It is
25
premature to compel Apple to provide discovery of potential substitute class representatives before
26
there is a need for substitute class representatives.
27

Likewise, Adkins’s health has apparently not yet “deteriorated” to the point that she cannot

28
5

1

serve as a class representative. In a declaration submitted with plaintiffs’ reply brief, Adkins

2

states that she has “mobility issues and walk with great difficulty” and has “health issues such

3

as diabetes, arthritis, and high blood pressure.” Adkins Reply Decl. ¶ 1 [Dkt. No. 93-1]. But

4

Adkins does not state that her health issues require her to withdraw from the case at this point.

5

She states that she will withdraw “as soon as a replacement senior citizen can be joined. Id. ¶ 5.

6

For its part, Apple states that it is “willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding potential

7

substitution” in the event that there is a genuine concern regarding Adkins’s health and plaintiffs

8

can make the required showing. Opp. at 9. That is appropriate and may obviate the need for

9

plaintiffs to seek relief from the Court.4
Moreover, plaintiffs have not suggested that English may need to be replaced as a class

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

representative for any reason. Notably, only English had standing to assert plaintiffs’ sixth cause

12

of action (violations of the Secondhand Merchandise Labeling Law). She therefore appears to be

13

a superior class representative, at least in that respect. It is not clear why Apple should be

14

compelled to provide discovery of potential substitute class members when plaintiffs have a class

15

representative not affected by the potential conflicts of interest or health concerns.
To the extent that plaintiffs seek class discovery “in order to aid in the class certification

16
17

process, not only to discover potential substitute plaintiffs,” as they state in their reply brief, their

18

motion is still premature. Plaintiffs have propounded only one request for production. No

19

depositions have been taken. At the case management conference on September 10, 2014, the

20

Court set a deadline of May 29, 2015 for filing a class certification motion and a discovery

21

deadline of January 8, 2016. See Dkt. No. 99. To the extent that specific discovery issues arise,

22

the parties can submit them to the Court using the appropriate procedures. But an order

23

compelling Apple to identify potential class members or otherwise provide discovery in aid of

24
25
26
27
28

4

At oral argument, counsel for plaintiffs asked whether precertification discovery would be
warranted if Adkins withdraws as class representative for health reasons. As I stated at the
hearing, I generally do not offer advisory opinions on legal issues. Should Adkins withdraw, and
if the parties are not able to resolve the matter through a meet and confer process, the parties can
present the issue as a discovery matter using the appropriate procedures. In that event, I would
expect plaintiffs to provide the Court with appropriate authorities authorizing the relief they seek,
including but not limited to why it is necessary to have a senior citizen as a class representative.
6

1

class certification at this point is not warranted for the reasons discussed throughout this opinion.

2

III.

3

PLAINTIFFS’ AUTHORITIES DO NOT WARRANT PRECERTIFICATION
DISCOVERY OF POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS IN THIS CASE
Precertification discovery of potential class members is not warranted at this time, even

4

under the California cases cited by plaintiffs.5 When considering a motion to compel discovery of

5
the names and addresses of potential class members under California law, the trial court must
6

“expressly identify any potential abuses of the class action procedure that may be created if the

7
discovery is permitted, and weigh the danger of such abuses against the rights of the parties under
8
the circumstances.” Parris v. Superior Court, 109 Cal. App. 4th 285, 300-01 (2003). For
9
example, in Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Superior Court, 173 Cal. App. 4th 814, 833 (2009), after it
10
was determined that the named plaintiff lacked standing, precertification discovery to identify

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

potential class members was allowed because many class members’ claims would be barred by a

12
statute of limitations and there was a strong showing on the merits. In CashCall, Inc. v. Superior
13
Court, 159 Cal. App. 4th 273, 290 (2008), precertification discovery of the identities of class
14
members was allowed because, absent precertification discovery, the potential class members
15
would have no knowledge of the alleged violation and would be unable to obtain any relief.
16
In contrast, in First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. App. 4th 1564, 1577
17
(2007), the court found that it was an abuse of discretion to allow precertification discovery to
18
identify class members where the named plaintiff lacked injury and was not part of the class. The
19
20

court explained that the named plaintiff lacked any interest in the action and “[a]ny further legal
action can be pursued by members of the class, if they so desire.” The court concluded that “the

21
potential for abuse of the class action procedure is overwhelming, while the interests of the real
22
parties in interest are minimal. Precertification discovery under these circumstances would be an
23

abuse of discretion.” Id.

24
None of the cases cited by plaintiffs deal with a situation like the present one, where
25
plaintiffs seek discovery to find substitute class representatives because some of the named
26
27
28

5

The parties dispute whether California or Ninth Circuit precedent controls plaintiffs’ motion. I
need not resolve that dispute at this stage as precertification discovery is not warranted even under
the state law authorities cited by plaintiffs. Precedent in the Ninth Circuit is more restrictive.
7

1

representatives may prove inadequate or may need to withdraw for health reasons. The rights of

2

potential plaintiffs are not jeopardized while the named plaintiffs remain in the case. In addition,

3

there is no reason that redress for Apple’s alleged violations cannot be pursued by other potential

4

plaintiffs, if they so choose. Plaintiffs argue that “the clock is ticking on some or all of plaintiffs’

5

and potential plaintiffs’ claims,” but plaintiffs have made no showing that any potential plaintiffs’

6

claims actually face imminent extinguishing. Moreover, allowing the discovery at this stage may

7

create significant potential abuses of the class action procedure given that the need for the

8

discovery is primarily predicated on a potential conflict created by plaintiffs’ counsel: she

9

provided Adkins and Galindo the money with which they, on the same day (October 30, 2013),
purchased the Apple devices that form the basis for their allegations in a complaint filed three

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

business days later (on November 4, 2013). See Mot. at 2; FAC ¶¶ 34, 42; Complaint [Dkt. No.

12

1].
CONCLUSION

13
14

For the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ motion to identify class members is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: September 15, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8