Algee v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Filing 79

FURTHER DISCOVERY ORDER re 63 Joint Discovery Letter BriefRe Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 16-21 and Request for Production of Documents Nos. 36-41 filed by Nordstrom, Inc.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/11/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BRIAN ALGEE,

9

No. C 11-0301 CW (MEJ)
Plaintiff,

FURTHER DISCOVERY ORDER

v.
Re: Dkt. No. 63

10
NORDSTROM, INC.,
12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
On May 2, 2012, the Court denied Defendant Nordstrom, Inc.’s request for discovery related

14

to the “pop up” advertisements and other potential solicitations of putative class members on

15

Facebook and other social networking websites by putative counsel Scott Cole and Associates

16

(SCA), finding that Nordstrom had failed to provide any authority establishing its entitlement to

17

such discovery. Dkt. No. 68. However, the Court permitted Nordstrom the opportunity to submit

18

supplemental briefing. Having reviewed the parties’ letters in response to the May 2 Order, the

19

Court finds that Nordstrom has shown that discovery into SCA’s advertisements could be relevant to

20

determination of SCA’s adequacy as class counsel. Further, Nordstrom’s requests do not appear

21

overly burdensome. See, e.g., Walker v. Alta Colleges, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *6-10 (W.D.

22

Tex. July 6, 2010) (finding the question of adequacy is properly explored through discovery to show

23

the potential solicitation of class representatives). However, the Court also notes that Nordstrom

24

already has evidence of what it contends was SCA’s misconduct,1 and through this evidence it may

25

raise the issue of adequacy. Id. at *8-9 (denying discovery requests given that defendants had

26
27
1

28

Specifically, Nordstrom cites to Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, in which he states that
he found his attorneys through an ad on Facebook, as well as a pop-up Facebook ad it claims was
generated by SCA. Joint Letter at 2.

1

already obtained relevant information). Thus, in balancing the burden and expense of the discovery

2

sought by Nordstrom, given the limited, non-merits based issue on which Nordstrom seeks it, the

3

Court finds it appropriate to limit Plaintiff’s responses to 2008 to the present.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED

5
6

Dated: May 11, 2012
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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