Risher v. Adecco Inc. et al

Filing 115

DISCOVERY ORDER. In the attached order, the court addresses the parties' discovery disputes in the Discovery Letter Brief at ECF No. 109 (lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2021)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CLARENCE RISHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiff,
13
v.

Case No. 19-cv-05602-RS (LB)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: ECF No. 109

14
ADECCO INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

This is a putative class action. The named plaintiff, Clarence Risher, alleges that the

19

defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending

20

text messages to his cell phone soliciting him for employment with Adecco.1 The parties filed a

21

discovery letter disputing the following: (1) the relevance of the plaintiff’s discovery requests to

22

the motion for class certification and whether the scope of the plaintiff’s discovery is outside the

23

complaint; (2) the status of the defendants’ objections to the discovery production on the basis of

24

undue burden and whether the defendant’s proposed data sample is sufficient; (3) whether the

25
26
27
28

Third Am. Compl. (TAC) – ECF No. 78 at 1; Order – ECF No. 48 at 1; Notice of Change of Name –
ECF No. 108. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05602-RS (LB)

1

defendants have waived their remaining objections; and (4) the format of certain ESI production.2

2

The court held a hearing on July 15, 2021, and now orders the following.

3

Regarding issues one through three, the court denies the plaintiff’s requests. Essentially, the

4

defendants argue that the plaintiff is seeking discovery outside the scope of his complaint.3 The

5

plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the TCPA by sending

6

text messages using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) to persons who last

7

interacted with Adecco before August 10, 2017, and by sending text messages to a subclass of

8

such persons whose numbers appear on the Do Not Call Registry.4 The plaintiff seeks discovery

9

on an undefined number of text recipients and text messages. For the reasons stated on the record,

10

the court adopts the defendants’ proposal for a responsive production, summarized as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

•

The defendants will produce an initial data sample specific to the text message
campaign through which the plaintiff received a text message

•

The plaintiff will have 14 days to review and provide feedback on the form of the
defendants’ production

•

The parties must then confer on the scope of a larger data production as applicable, in
the format agreed to by the parties, seeking input from the undersigned as needed to
resolve disagreements regarding the scope of the data production and any objections
from the defendants based on burden.5

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

The contemplated production will be in Excel and will be produced in seven to ten days. Given the

19

agreement to produce the sample in native format (with a larger production to follow, presumably

20

also in native format), the court defers consideration of any challenges to the form of production

21

until there is a concrete dispute.

22
23
24
25
2

Letter Brief – ECF No. 109 at 1–7.

3

Id. at 3.

27

4

TAC – ECF No. 78 at 9 (¶ 35).

28

5

Id. at 4.

26

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05602-RS (LB)

2

The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint early this morning.6

1
2

If that complaint changes the scope of discovery, the parties can revisit the dispute.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: July 15, 2021
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

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
Motion for Leave to Amend Compl. – ECF No. 113; Proposed Fourth Am. Compl., Ex. 1 to id. –
ECF No. 113-2.
6

28

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05602-RS (LB)

3