Bernstein v. Virgin America, Inc.

Filing 189

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 186 Defendant's Discovery Request (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.15-cv-02277-JST (JSC)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
DISCOVERY REQUEST

v.
VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 186

Defendant.

12
13

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s discovery letter brief seeking written

14

discovery and depositions of 10% of the absent class members, or 180 individuals. (Dkt. No.

15

186.) Defendant also seeks a continuance of the current September 22, 2017 discovery cut-off to

16

allow Defendant the opportunity to conduct this additional discovery. Plaintiff opposes the

17

request. (Dkt. No. 188.) Defendant’s request is denied.

18

This is not Defendant’s first attempt to pursue discovery of absent class members. It

19

previously sought documents, interrogatory responses, and depositions from each absent class

20

member, or 1800 individuals. (Dkt. Nos. 165, 172.) That request was denied. (Dkt. No. 175.)

21

The Court explained that the broad discovery Defendant seeks--depositions, document requests,

22

and interrogatories--is not appropriate for a certified class, and that if Defendant believes liability

23

involves significant individual questions, it should move to decertify the class. (Id.) Until then,

24

the Court would treat the lawsuit as a class action. (Id.) Defendant did not move to decertify the

25

class. Instead, Defendant appealed this Court’s July 28, 2017 order to Judge Tigar, who affirmed

26

this Court’s decision and denied Defendant’s motion for relief. (Dkt. Nos. 179, 185.) Defendant

27

subsequently filed the discovery request pending before the Court.

28

Defendant maintains its same position – that discovery of the class is appropriate. It raises

1

no new arguments regarding the necessity of the requested discovery. Moreover, Defendant’s

2

argument that its due process rights entitle it to discovery of all available defenses has been

3

rejected by the Ninth Circuit. See Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.

4

2017). Finally, the request comes too late as discovery closes this Friday and Defendant has not

5

shown good cause for extending the discovery deadline.

6

Accordingly, Defendant’s request is denied. This Order disposes of Docket No. 186.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: September 19, 2017

9
10
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2