In Re Pacific Fertility Center Litigation
Filing
337
ORDER RE: ABSENT CLASS MEMBER DISCOVERY 335 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/3/2019. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
A.B., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 18-cv-01586-JSC
ORDER RE: ABSENT CLASS
MEMBER DISCOVERY
v.
PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER, et al.,
Dkt. No. 335
Defendants.
12
13
Pending before the Court is a joint discovery letter brief regarding defendant Chart’s
14
request to depose absent class members who were previously named plaintiffs but withdrew as
15
named plaintiffs prior to the filing of the operative complaint. (Dkt. No. 335.) After carefully
16
considering the parties’ submission, Chart’s request is denied. Instead, as Plaintiffs proposed,
17
Chart may serve each formerly named plaintiff with five interrogatory requests.
18
The Court agrees that the information sought could be relevant to the class certification
19
motion; indeed, nearly every absent class member potentially possesses information relevant to
20
certification. Nonetheless, discovery of absent class members is generally not permitted unless the
21
class member has inserted herself into the litigation. See McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy
22
Franchising, LLC, 2017 WL 4798048, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017) . Here, the proposed
23
deponents have done the opposite of asserting themselves into the litigation: having initially
24
agreed to serve as named plaintiffs, they have withdrawn and instead currently have no more
25
involvement in the case than any other absent class member who has not submitted a declaration
26
in support of class certification or been identified as a witness on initial disclosures.
27
28
The cases Chart cites in support of its request are inapposite. In each, the named plaintiffs
had identified the absent class members as potential witnesses in initial disclosures, see Brown v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2018 WL 339080, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018) (discovery permitted of
2
absent class members that the plaintiffs identified in amended disclosures as persons they may call
3
as witnesses); Mas v. Cumulus Media Inc., 2010 WL 4916402, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)
4
(absent class members were identified as witnesses and were already deposed; defendant sought
5
further deposition after the production of additional documents), or the absent class member
6
submitted declarations in the litigation, see Antoninetti v. Chipotle, Inc., 2011 WL 2003292, at *1
7
(S.D. Cal. May 23, 2011) (absent class members submitted declarations), or the absent class
8
member was a percipient witness to the named plaintiff’s alleged adequacy, see McKinney-
9
Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 2017 WL 4798048, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017)
10
(permitting deposition of named plaintiff’s husband (also an absent class member) on the limited
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
issue of his spouse’s adequacy as a class representative). None of those circumstances are present
12
here.
13
While Chart suspects that these absent class members may have withdrawn as named
14
plaintiffs because their personal circumstances no longer make them “typical” or destroy
15
“commonality” for class certification purposes, it does not explain how Plaintiffs’ offer to have
16
these former named plaintiffs answer five interrogatories will not provide Chart with sufficient
17
information to oppose class certification. Sitting for a deposition is a burden, especially for an
18
absent class member, and especially for a case as potentially emotionally fraught as this. Chart
19
has not persuaded the Court that at this time there is good cause for requiring these particular
20
absent class members to endure that burden.
21
The Court notes that it is making this ruling without the benefit of the parties’ full class
22
certification briefing. If upon review of the briefing the Court concludes that Defendants have
23
been deprived of necessary discovery, the issue can be revisited.
24
This Order disposes of Docket No. 335.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: December 3, 2019
27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?