Ato Williams v. Cintas Services Corporate Services, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 28 4/20/18 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ATO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 4:17-cv-01623-JSW (KAW)
ORDER TERMINATING 4/20/18 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 28

CINTAS SERVICES CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On April 20, 2018, the parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning Plaintiff’s request

14

for the production of contact information for all putative class members. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 28

15

at 1.) The parties, however, declined to address the proportionality requirement in Rule 26, as

16

there is no indication of the number of putative class members across the 90 California locations.

17

(See Joint Letter at 5.) As a result, the undersigned is unable to determine whether the production

18

of the information sought is proportional to the needs of the case or if another method, such as

19

sampling, would be more appropriate than producing the contact information for all putative class

20

members.

21

Accordingly, the joint letter is TERMINATED and the parties are ordered to further meet

22

and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute without further court intervention. Should the

23

parties be unable to resolve the dispute informally, they shall file a joint letter that complies with

24

the undersigned’s standing order. (See Judge Westmore’s Standing Order ¶¶ 12-13.)

25

Notwithstanding, to assist the parties in their meet and confer efforts, the Court is not

26

persuaded by Defendant’s argument that discovery should be limited to those employees who

27

worked in the same two positions and single location as Plaintiff. (See Joint Letter at 6-8.) Indeed,

28

“[a]lthough a party seeking class certification is not always entitled to discovery on the class

1

certification issue, the propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without

2

discovery.” Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). As

3

Defendant recognizes, district courts have broad discretion to control the class certification

4

process. Id. at 942.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 11, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2