Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 138

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 137 10/31/16 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KELLY CARROLL, ET AL.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW)

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER REGARDING 10/31/16 JOINT
LETTER

v.
9
10

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 137

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On September 8, 2016, the undersigned ordered Wells Fargo to produce contact

13
14

information for a 25% sample of putative class members, which was later restricted to service-side

15

employees. The undersigned ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding how the random

16

sample should be selected. Despite their meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to reach

17

an agreement, and filed the instant joint letter on October 31, 2016. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 137 at

18

1.)

19

Plaintiff proposes that the sample should be selected based on Employee Identification

20

Numbers (EINs), and the randomization of the EINs would be performed by Plaintiff’s expert

21

after receiving the EINs for all putative class members. (Joint Letter at 2.)

22

Wells Fargo objects to this proposal on the grounds that it was not required to produce

23

EINs for putative class members, and that the Court’s September 8, 2016 order already rejected

24

tasking Plaintiff’s expert with selecting the sample. (Joint Letter at 3.) Instead, Wells Fargo

25

proposes that each putative class member be assigned one new, unique number (“seed” number),

26

and, using the seed number, use a random number generator in Excel to randomize the class

27

members. (Joint Letter at 4.) Wells Fargo would then select the first 25% of the randomly sorted

28

putative class members and produce that information. Id. The process would be performed by

1

Wells Fargo’s expert at Navigant Consulting. Id. Plaintiff objects to Wells Fargo’s expert

2

performing the sample, because it would give Wells Fargo the opportunity to cherry-pick

3

employees, without allowing Plaintiff to verify that the sample was randomly generated. (Joint

4

Letter at 3.)

5

Wells Fargo is the custodian of the information, and the sampling method it proposes is

6

reasonable. Furthermore, the very nature of the discovery process requires that the parties act in

7

good faith in their productions, so Plaintiff’s argument that there is the potential to manipulate the

8

random sample is unavailing. Accordingly, Wells Fargo’s proposed sampling method shall be

9

utilized, and the information shall be produced on or before December 2, 2016.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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