Vedachalam v. Tata America International Corporation et al

Filing 238

ORDER granting #222 Motion to Quash; signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 8/11/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

GOPI VEDACHALAM, et al.,

9
Plaintiffs,

No. C 06-00963 CW (EDL)

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

TATA AMERICA INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,

13
14
15

Defendants.
___________________________________/
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to quash three deposition subpoenas issued to class members

16

who submitted but then withdrew declarations in support of class certification. The Court granted a

17

request to hear the motion to on shortened time in light of the upcoming class certification discovery

18

cutoff. Having determined that this motion is appropriate for resolution without the need for oral

19

argument, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to quash.1

20

In support of their motion for class certification, Plaintiffs submitted 46 declarations from

21

proposed class members. Defendants produced the declarants’ personnel files and Plaintiffs

22

produced the declarants’ documents on a rolling basis as received, to the extent that the parties were

23

able to obtain these documents. Defendants have taken the depositions of at least 28 of the

24

declarants throughout the United States and abroad, and several more depositions are scheduled to

25

occur prior to the class certification discovery cutoff of August 26. However, three of the declarants

26
27
28

1

The parties do not dispute that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute over the
subpoenas even though they were issued in the Central District of California, the Eastern District of
North Carolina, and the District of Minnesota, because the declarants consent to have this Court resolve
the issue. Lehe Decl. ¶ 21; Fincher v. Keller Industries, Inc., 129 F.R.D. 123, 125 (M.D.N.C. 1990)
(noting that issuing court hears non-party subpoena disputes unless non-party consents to transfer the
discovery matter to the trial court).

1

on whom deposition subpoenas were served informed counsel that they cannot sit for a deposition

2

under any circumstances for various personal reasons. They therefore withdrew their declarations in

3

support of class certification. Despite these declarants’ withdrawal of their declarations and

4

Defendants’ knowledge of their personal hardships (e.g., obligations to care for an infant, possible

5

job retaliation against a relative, and financial hardship), Defendants still seek to enforce these three

6

deposition subpoenas.

7

Having withdrawn their declarations, these three declarants are on equal footing with

8

unnamed, absent class members. See Feldman v. Motorola, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20586,

9

*19-20 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 1992) (applying absent class member standard to named class members
who had withdrawn); Cornn v. UPS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69196, *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(“[n]othing in Rule 23 suggests that class members are deemed ‘parties’” for purposes of

12

deposition). Thus, Defendants must show that: (1) the discovery is not designed to take undue

13

advantage of class members or to reduce the size of the class, (2) the discovery is necessary, (3)

14

responding to the discovery requests would not require the assistance of counsel, and (4) the

15

discovery seeks information that is not already known by the proponent. McPhail v. First Command

16

Fin. Planning, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 514, 517 (S.D. Cal. 2008).

17

Defendants’ insistence on these three depositions, despite the significant other discovery it

18

has already obtained to support its opposition to class certification, indicates a possible attempt to

19

unduly burden these class members. Defendants knew that one of the declarations was withdrawn

20

prior to issuance of the subpoena and the others were subsequently withdrawn, so the effect of these

21

depositions which entail personal hardship is to burden the declarants for previously participating in

22

the litigation. Defendants have made insufficient effort to address these individual’s personal

23

hardships relating to the depositions.

24

Further, the depositions do not appear to be “necessary.” These individuals have withdrawn

25

their declarations so the Court will not consider them in ruling on the class certification motion.

26

Additionally, this is essentially a breach of contract dispute over whether class members were paid

27

the amount Defendants were contractually required to pay them, and the employment documents

28

themselves (contracts, deputation agreements, earnings statements, appropriation of tax refund
checks) are likely the most important evidence. Further, Defendants have or will take many
depositions of other class members. Defendants have not shown why depositions from these three

1

individuals, as opposed to the multiple others already or about to be deposed or the documents

2

previously produced, are needed when they have significant other evidence to support their class

3

certification opposition already.

4

Further, the information to be gathered from these individuals, even if relevant, can largely

veracity of the statements in the withdrawn declarations is available in Defendants’ personnel files

7

for each of the three individuals, as well as documents produced by at least two of the declarants.

8

Defendants’ failure to retain complete personnel records should not be used as a reason to subject

9

the individuals to depositions. Information relating to the case more generally has also been

10

obtained from other class members’ depositions and will be obtained during eight additional

11
For the Northern District of California

be obtained from other sources within Defendants’ control. For example, information about the

6

United States District Court

5

depositions scheduled for the coming weeks.

12

Even if they were not subject to a higher standard for absent class members, the deposition

13

subpoenas would still be quashed as unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) (“[a] party or

14

attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid

15

imposing an undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.”). Complying with the

16

subpoenas would impose a significant burden by requiring the declarants to neglect significant

17

demands of their families and employers to sit for depositions, and outweighs the relatively minimal

18

relevance or necessity of the depositions in the context of class certification.

19
20

Plaintiffs’ motion to quash is GRANTED.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: August 11, 2011
_______________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge