Mihail Slavkov et al v. Fast Water Heater Partners I, LP et al

Filing 50

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 48 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Nikola Vlaovic, Martin Arnaudov, Mihail Slavkov. Letter Brief due by 10/9/2015. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 10/16/2015 at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 25, 2015. [Please email a conference call number to [e-mail] for the Court to use]. Correction of Docket 49. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MIHAIL SLAVKOV, et al.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-04324-JST

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 48

9
FAST WATER HEATER PARTNERS I,
LP, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

12
The Court has received the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter concerning 28 separate

13
14

categories of information.1 ECF No. 48. The Court now orders as follows:
1.

15

Defendants will produce sufficient information to show the identities of, and

16

contact information for, members of the class, subject to the protective order that this Court

17

already entered. ECF No. 35. Notice pursuant to Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court,

18

149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 561 (2007), is not required. “Numerous courts in the Northern District of

19

California have allowed pre-certification discovery of putative class members' confidential

20

information subject to a protective order, without requiring prior notice to the putative class

21

members.” Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 13-CV-0119-LHK, 2013 WL 3215186, at *2

22

(N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) (quoting Holman v. Experian Info Solutions, Inc., No. C 11–0180 CW,

23

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59401, at *48, 2012 WL 1496203 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 27, 2012)) (additional

24

citations omitted).2 This disposes of categories 1 and 11 in the parties’ joint letter brief. ECF No.

25
1

26
2

27
28

The letter lists 29 categories, but numbers 1 and 11 appear to be identical.

This Court has previously addressed the need for Belaire notice once before, affirming a
Magistrate Judge’s determination that such notice was appropriate. Willner v. Manpower Inc.,
No. 11-CV-02846-JST, 2013 WL 1729771, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013). However, in that
case the Court’s role was confined to determining whether the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was

1
2

48 at 2.
2.

The Court expresses no view now about whether the production of additional

3

categories of information regarding putative class members might require a Belaire notice. See,

4

e.g., Barreras v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. C 12-4474 (PJH), 2015 WL 1886337, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

5

Apr. 24, 2015) (Belaire notice appropriate for production of employees’ medical leave requests).

6

3.

Counsel have not sufficiently met and conferred regarding the Plaintiffs’ remaining

requests. The parties will commence at least eight hours of such negotiations immediately. At

8

least four of those hours will be conducted in person, and the balance of them will be conducted

9

on the telephone. The parties will keep track of the date, time, format, and duration of their

10

negotiations. While the Court will not order lead trial counsel to conduct the negotiations,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

whichever lawyer does participate must have full authority to resolve any dispute himself or

12

herself on the spot. During those eight hours, email will be used solely to document the parties’

13

verbal agreements, and not to negotiate. While eight hours might seem like a great deal of time, it

14

is dramatically less time than will be required by counsel and the Court if the parties’ dispute

15

remains in its current state.

16

4.

Following their negotiations, the parties will submit another letter brief, addressing

17

four of the parties’ remaining discovery disputes or categories of information. Plaintiffs and

18

Defendants will each select two. The parties will also set forth which disputes they have resolved

19

by negotiation, and which additional disputes remain. The joint letter will be no more than eight

20

pages in length. The parties will attach competing proposed orders to their joint letter. The letter

21

must be submitted by October 9, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. PDT.

22

5.

In considering the parties’ competing proposed orders, the Court will endeavor to

23

choose, in all respects, the single proposal it concludes is most reasonable. See Michael Carrell &

24

Richard Bales, Considering Final Offer Arbitration to Resolve Public Sector Impasses in Times of

25

Concession Bargaining, 28 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 1, 20 (2013) (“In baseball arbitration . . .

26

the parties . . . have every incentive to make a reasonable proposal to the arbitrator because the

27
28

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.
2

1

arbitrator will choose the more reasonable offer”); see also Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v. View,

2

Inc., No. 12-CV-6441-JST, 2014 WL 1379282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014) (same).

3

6.

The Court will hold a telephonic hearing on October 16, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. PDT.

4

The hearing will not be reported. The Court will then decide the disputes contained in the parties’

5

joint letter brief, and will set forth a mechanism for the resolution of any remaining disputes.

6

7.

The Court will not set a deadline now for the production of the materials described

7

in Paragraph One of this order. The parties should meet and confer about that. Factors to be

8

considered include the effort required to collect the information, the form the information will

9

take, and whether that information will need to be produced with other categories of information
which remain in dispute. If the parties cannot reach agreement on a production deadline, they

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

should inform the Court on October 16.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2015
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3