Algee v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Filing 93

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 92 Discovery Letter Brief (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2012)

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,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.
Re: Dkt. No. 92

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

13
14

The Court is in receipt of a joint discovery dispute letter from the parties regarding

15

Defendant Nordstrom, Inc.’s interrogatories and requests for production related to the adequacy of

16

putative class counsel Scott Cole and Associates. Dkt. No. 92. Nordstrom seeks documents related

17

to Scott Cole’s agreements with internet service providers related to advertisements of “pop-up”

18

messages related to Nordstrom or Nordstrom employees. Upon review of the parties’ letter, the

19

Court DENIES Nordstrom’s request. Although discovery into Scott Cole’s agreements with internet

20

service providers could possibly be seen as relevant to determination of its adequacy as class

21

counsel, the Court finds that any such relevance is too limited to justify discovery. Further, this

22

Court has already ordered production of advertisements on all social networking sites since 2008,

23

see Dkt. No. 79, and Nordstrom admits that it already has evidence of what it contends was Scott

24

Cole’s misconduct.1 Thus, in balancing the burden and expense of the discovery sought by

25

Nordstrom, against the limited, non-merits based issue on which Nordstrom seeks it, the Court finds

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

that Nordstrom has already been given ample discovery opportunities by which it may raise the issue

2

of adequacy. See, e.g., Walker v. Alta Colleges, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *8-9 (W.D. Tex.

3

July 6, 2010) (denying discovery requests given that defendants had already obtained relevant

4

information). No further response is warranted.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED

6
7

Dated: May 31, 2012
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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