Trabakoolas et al v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 128

ORDER re 123 Discovery Letter Brief Discovery Dispute Joint Submission: Plaintiffs' Request for a Protective Order filed by Sheila Stetson, Jason Trabakoolas. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request for a protective order. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/29/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

JASON TRABAKOOLAS and SHIELA
STETSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Case No.: 12-cv-01172-YGR
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY LETTER
BRIEF (DKT. NO. 123)

Plaintiffs,
v.
WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

13
14

The parties have filed a joint discovery letter brief in which Plaintiffs seek a protective order

15

related to certain requests for admission (“RFAs”) served by Defendants. (Dkt. No. 123.) Identical

16

requests have been served on each Named Plaintiff. The RFAs fall into two categories:

17

(1) RFA nos. 1–8 and 23, which seek admissions from Plaintiffs regarding Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company’s relationship with Arbitration Forums, Inc., the rules
governing that relationship, and effect of that relationship; and

18
19

(2) RFA nos. 38–50, which seek admissions regarding the relationship of class
counsel, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barret & Bendesky, PC (“Saltz Firm”) and The Law
Offices of Robert A. Stutman, P.C. (“Stutman Firm”) in a prior litigation, In re
Riverwalk Fire Litigation (“Riverwalk Litigation”).1

20
21
22

Plaintiffs primarily argue that the RFAs seek information beyond their reasonable knowledge

23
24
25
26
27
28

or relative control. Because Plaintiffs were not party to any agreement between Arbitration Forums
and Liberty Mutual, they do not have any personal knowledge regarding the first category. Further,
Plaintiffs were not parties to the Riverwalk Litigation, thus they do not have any knowledge on those
issues. Plaintiffs assert that it would be an undue burden for them to familiarize themselves with the
1

In addition to referring to the RFAs by number, the Court may refer to the RFAs by the categories
set forth above—i.e., “first category” and “second category.”

1

matters at issue in the RFAs, and that, regardless, the information sought is not relevant to the facts or

2

claims in this action.

3

Defendants respond with three primary arguments. First, Plaintiffs have propounded their

4

own discovery relating to Arbitration Forums on the same topics as the RFAs at issue, and thus there

5

is no burden because they have already gathered information on the relevant issues. Second, it is

6

irrelevant that Plaintiffs are not members of Arbitration Forums or were not parties in the Riverwalk

7

Litigation because that information is within their control through obtained discovery (first category)

8

and because the Saltz Firm is their agent with knowledge of their own partnering relationship with

9

the Stutman Firm in the Riverwalk Litigation (second category). Third, the discovery is relevant

10

because solicitation of Named Plaintiffs, if improper, raise issues of typicality, adequacy, and/or

11

predominance for class certification.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a protective order is warranted. RFA nos. 1–8 and 23 are

13

not properly directed to Plaintiffs. If Defendants seek admissions regarding Liberty Mutual’s

14

relationship with Arbitration Forums, the rules that bound their relationship, and the effect of that

15

relationship, Defendants can obtain that information from Liberty Mutual directly. To the extent that

16

Plaintiffs have been deposed on these issues already, they have stated they do not have personal

17

knowledge. The fact that Plaintiffs have obtained some discovery on these issues does not change the

18

fact that Defendants seek admissions that are rightfully directed to Liberty Mutual. It would be an

19

undue burden for Plaintiffs to personally become familiar with the nature of the relationship of

20

Liberty Mutual and Arbitration Forums such that they can admit or deny RFA nos. 1–8 and 23.

21

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), Plaintiffs have shown that “the discovery sought is unreasonably

22

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

23

burdensome, or less expensive.” As such, good cause has been shown to warrant a protective order.

24

As to the second category, the Court finds that RFA nos. 38–50 are also not properly directed

25

to Plaintiffs. Defendants admit that the requests are directed to the knowledge of their current

26

counsel, the Saltz Firm. While Defendants characterize this as a “reasonable” investigation, the Court

27

views this an improper use of discovery. At least as these RFAs relate to Plaintiffs, they target

28

information that is wholly unrelated to their claims against Defendants and for which Plaintiffs have

2

1

no personal knowledge on their own. Indeed, the requests relate to a “relationship” that occurred

2

entirely in the course of another litigation. Counsel are not “agents” under the discovery rules such

3

that a party must admit or deny requests based information known only by counsel about another

4

litigation, none of which would be known to the party in the first place.

5
6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for a protective order.
Plaintiffs are not required to respond to RFA nos. 1–8, 23, and 38–50.

7

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 123.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: April 29, 2013
_________________________________________

11

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3