Algee v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS 86 , 87 MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Responses due by 5/30/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/25/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

BRIAN ALGEE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated,

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Docket Nos. 86
and 87)

Plaintiff,
v.
NORDSTROM, INC.,

9
10

No. C 11-301 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/

11

Defendant Nordstrom, Inc. seeks relief from two

12

non-dispositive discovery orders of the magistrate judge.

13

first, issued on May 3, 2012, the magistrate judge ordered

14

Defendant to disclose to Plaintiffs the names and contact

15

information for the putative class members, which is estimated to

16

include approximate sixty individuals.

17

second, issued on May 7, 2012, the magistrate judge ordered

18

Defendant to provide responses to certain requests for production

19

of documents made by Plaintiff, and to limit its responses to a

20

sample of one-quarter of the putative class.

Docket No. 71.

In the

In the

Docket No. 75.

21

A magistrate judge’s orders on non-dispositive pretrial

22

matters are reviewed using a clearly erroneous or contrary to law

23

standard.

24

Procedure 72(a).

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Federal Rule of Civil

25

In both motions, Defendant primarily contends that Plaintiff

26

lacks standing to pursue his claims based on certain parts of his

27

deposition testimony, which Defendant believes “confirmed that he

28

was properly classified as overtime exempt at all relevant times.”

1

Mots. at 1.

2

will not be able to prove the merits of his case.

3

purpose of the standing doctrine is to ensure that the plaintiff

4

has a concrete dispute with the defendant, not that the plaintiff

5

will ultimately prevail against the defendant.”

6

266 F.3d 969, 976-977 (9th Cir. 2001).

7

that Plaintiff properly alleged the three elements of the “case or

8

controversy” requirement of Article III, injury in fact,

9

causation, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress

The essence of Defendant’s argument is that Plaintiff
However, “[t]he

Hall v. Norton,

Defendant does not dispute

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

his alleged injury, which is sufficient to establish standing at

11

this stage of the litigation, prior to the filing of any summary

12

judgment motion.

13

561 (1992).

14

may go to his adequacy as a class representative, which will be

15

addressed in the class certification motion.1

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

The alleged weakness of Plaintiff’s individual case

16
17
1

18
19
20

Defendant has indicated that it may file a summary judgment
motion addressing the standing issue. Defendant may do so as part
of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification
and cross-motion to compel arbitration of current employees,
contained in a single brief of twenty-five pages or less, in
accordance with the briefing and hearing schedule previously set
out in the Court’s order of March 27, 2012. See Docket No. 62.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

If Defendant does so, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s
cross-motion for summary judgment shall be contained with his
reply in support of his motion for class certification and
opposition to the motion to compel arbitration in a single brief
of twenty-five pages or less. Defendant’s reply in support of its
motion for summary judgment shall be contained in a single brief
of fifteen pages or less with its reply in support of its motion
to compel arbitration. The hearing on Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment shall be heard on Thursday, November 29, 2012, at
2:00 p.m., concurrently with the hearings on Plaintiff’s motion
for class certification and Defendant’s motion to compel
arbitration.

28
2

1

In its challenge to the May 3, 2012 order, Defendant

2

additionally argues that the putative class members’

3

constitutional right to privacy bars production of the class list

4

and that the magistrate judge should not have ordered disclosure

5

of the full class list.

6

magistrate judge, who considered and rejected them, and Defendant

7

presents no reason to conclude that her determination was clearly

8

erroneous or contrary to law.

9

relief from the May 3, 2012 order is DENIED (Docket No. 86).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant made these arguments to the

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for

In its motion for relief from the May 7, 2012 order,

11

Defendant also contends that the magistrate judge’s order limiting

12

production to one-quarter of the putative class does not make

13

sense when read in conjunction with the requests for production

14

themselves.

15

quarter of the putative class can logically be read to mean that,

16

for requests in which Plaintiff asked for documents related to all

17

class members, Nordstrom is required to produce documents related

18

to only a sample of one-quarter of the putative class members.

19

This argument is unavailing.

The limitation to one-

Defendant further argues that much of the production ordered

20

in the May 7, 2012 order is overly broad prior to a motion for

21

class certification.

22

appears meritorious as to Request No. 61, through which Plaintiff

23

seeks “[a]ll documents identifying third parties providing food

24

supplies to the California Nordstrom restaurants during the class

25

period,” but does not find Defendant’s argument persuasive for the

26

remainder of the requests.

27
28

The Court notes that Defendant’s argument

Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for relief from the
May 7, 2012 order as to the other requests for production, and
3

1

sets a briefing schedule on Defendant’s over-breadth argument

2

regarding Request No. 61 only, as follows.

3

the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a response of three

4

pages or less.

5

Within five days of

The Court will decide the motion on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 5/25/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4