Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 51

ORDER re 39 Joint Report re Discovery Dispute No. 1 filed by David Elias. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 12/18/2013. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

1

*E-Filed: December 18, 2013*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

DAVID ELIAS, an individual, on behalf of
himself, the general public and those
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13

No. C12-00421 LHK (HRL)
ORDER ON DDJR #1
[Re: Docket No. 39]

v.
14
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
15
16
17

Defendant.
____________________________________/
Plaintiff David Elias, on behalf of a putative class, sues Defendant Hewlett-Packard

18

Company (“HP”) for various violations of federal and state law in connection with its selling of

19

customized desktop computers with inadequate power sources. The parties’ Discovery Dispute

20

Joint Report #1 (DDJR #1, Dkt. 39) concerns the scope of two general categories of Plaintiff’s

21

requested discovery. First, HP objects to Plaintiff’s request for discovery on all Slimline and

22

Pavilion models because, it argues, discovery on any model other than the one actually purchased by

23

Plaintiff is irrelevant. Alternatively, HP maintains that production of the requested discovery would

24

constitute an undue burden. Second, the parties dispute the extent to which HP must produce

25

documents related to other litigation.

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC, Dkt. 44)1 alleges that HP sold all of its Pavilion

1
2

and Slimline computers with an included and non-customizable power supply unit. However, HP

3

allows customers to customize Pavilion and Slimline computers with upgraded components, such as

4

graphics cards, many of which require more watts than are provided by the included power supply

5

unit and/or whose manufacturers recommended a power supply greater than that provided. The

6

inadequacy of the power supplies caused computers to malfunction, including overheating leading

7

to total failure.

8

The putative class is defined as:

9

11

All persons who, between December 7, 2007 and the present, purchased, in the
United States, a computer, directly from Defendant, with an included power supply
unit having a rated capacity lower than (1) the total combined Wattage of all internal
PC components and peripherals or (2) the capacity recommended by the manufacturer
of any included component or peripheral.

12

Plaintiff purchased a Slimline s5305z, but it seeks discovery on all Pavilion and Slimline

13

models, totaling over 200. Plaintiff also requests discovery of documents related to any lawsuit

14

concerning inadequate power or power supply, faulty power supply units, failed motherboards,

15

overheating, and a host of other malfunctions.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LEGAL STANDARDS

16
17

Courts generally recognize the need for pre-certification discovery relating to class issues.

18

See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Our cases stand

19

for the unremarkable proposition that often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class

20

certification and that some discovery will be warranted.”). Whether or not such discovery will be

21

permitted, however, and the scope of any discovery that is allowed, lies within the court’s sound

22

discretion. Id.; Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “‘[D]iscovery often

23

has been used to illuminate issues upon which a district court must pass in deciding whether a suit

24

should proceed as a class action under Rule 23, such as numerosity, common questions, and

25

adequacy of representation.’” Del Campo, 236 F.R.D. at 459 (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

26
1

27
28

When the parties filed DDJR #1, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC, Dkt. 29) was in
effect, and HP’s Motion to Dismiss the SAC (Dkt. 30) was pending. Judge Koh denied the motion
as to Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claims, but dismissed the others, some with leave to amend. See
Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-Part Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 41. Plaintiff has since filed the
TAC, and another Motion to Dismiss is pending.
2

1

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n.13 (1978)). Plaintiffs bear the burden of advancing a prima facie

2

showing that the class action requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied, or that discovery is likely to

3

produce substantiation of the class allegations. Id.

4

Rule 23(a) provides that a class member may sue as a representative on behalf of all

5

members only if: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there

6

are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative

7

parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly

8

and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Rule 23(b)(3) provides that

9

a class action may be maintained if “the Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, and that a

11

class actions is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
DISCUSSION

13
14
15

I. Discovery of All Pavilion and Slimline Models
Plaintiff alleges that HP is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and vendors of personal

16

computers and estimates that the class is composed of more than 100 individuals, which is sufficient

17

for a prima facie showing of the numerosity requirement. See Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC,

18

292 F.R.D. 620, 624 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“Courts have routinely found the numerosity requirement

19

satisfied when the class comprises 40 or more members.”).

20

Plaintiff alleges that each class member’s claims arise from having been sold a computer

21

from HP with an insufficient power supply. Common issues of fact and law include, respectively,

22

whether HP failed to inform class members of the inadequate supply, and if so, whether the failure

23

was unlawful. Because these issues are common to the class as a whole, Plaintiff has satisfied the

24

second prerequisite.

25

“The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the

26

action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class

27

members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657

28

F.3d 970, 984 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff alleges that his claims are typical of the class because he,

3

robust power supply than what was provided, and all class members sustained the same injuries and

3

damages arising out of defendant’s conduct. However, HP disputes the relevancy of discovery of

4

models other than the one actually purchased by Plaintiff, which bears on the typicality inquiry.2

5

HP argues that to obtain discovery Plaintiff must show “substantial similarities” between his model

6

and the others on which he requests discovery. Although the cases HP relies on in DDJR #1 are

7

distinguishable, a comparable “sufficient similarity” test has been applied in this district where, as

8

here, a plaintiff pursuing a putative class action brings claims and seeks discovery concerning

9

products other than those actually purchased. See Ogden, 292 F.R.D. at 625-26. For example, in

10

For the Northern District of California

like all class members, purchased from HP a computer containing components requiring a more

2

United States District Court

1

product mislabeling class actions, the sufficient similarity standard has been found satisfied where

11

the misrepresentations across product lines are identical, or the products themselves have nearly

12

identical compositions. Id.; see also Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 881,

13

890-92 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Here, Plaintiff’s core allegation that HP provided underpowered

14

computers is consistent across the entirety of both Pavilion and Slimline product lines. Moreover,

15

although the components within computers will necessarily vary across models, and even within

16

models due to customizations, the Court nevertheless thinks that the basic composition of Pavilion

17

and Slimline computers are sufficiently similar for this early stage where Plaintiff only need

18

demonstrate a prima facie showing of typicality.
As for adequacy of representation, Plaintiff asserts that he has no interests in conflict with

19
20

those of the class, that counsel is experienced, and that they have adequate resources to vigorously

21

litigate the action. Having no reason to doubt these assertions, the Court finds the adequacy prong

22

satisfied.

23
24
2

25
26
27
28

Although HP does not actually advance its argument within this framework, courts have addressed
the issue of whether plaintiffs may assert claims for (and therefore obtain discovery on) products
they did not purchase under the typicality prong of Rule 23. See Ogden, 292 F.R.D. at 623-26. It
should be noted, however, that other courts (within this district even) have analyzed the question as
a matter of standing. See Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 868-870 (N.D.
Cal. 2012). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has individual standing to bring each claim asserted in the
complaint based on his own experience with the model he purchased. Thus, the focus shifts to class
certification to determine whether Plaintiff may represent class members whose claims are based on
other models. See Newberg on Class Actions, §2:1, 2:6.
4

1

In the TAC, Plaintiff lists sixteen issues of law and/or fact allegedly common to the class,

2

which will not be reproduced here. It suffices to say that the Court is convinced that Plaintiff has

3

made a prima facie showing that issues of law and fact common to the class predominate over issues

4

unique to individuals. Plaintiff also alleges that individual remedies by members of the class would

5

be inefficient and lead to inconsistent outcomes. Additionally, individuals would be discouraged

6

from seeking redress due to the potentially small rewards compared to the high costs of litigation.

7

Thus, Plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority

8

requirements.

9

The Court finds that Plaintiff has successfully borne its burden of advancing a prima facie

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

showing that the class action requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled

11

to discovery on the accused products, including all Pavilion and Slimline models on which it has

12

requested discovery.

13

Furthermore, HP’s argument that producing discovery on all Pavilion and Slimline models

14

would constitute an undue burden is unsubstantiated. HP asserts that its production of over 1,000

15

pages of documents concerning Plaintiff’s model was already a burden, and thus to produce

16

discovery on over 200 models would be “crushing.” However, it provides no specifics in terms of

17

resources already expended or estimated additional costs. Thus, the Court does not accept HP’s

18

conclusory assertion of undue burden, and the requested discovery cannot be withheld on that basis.

19

Accordingly, HP shall produce the requested discovery on all Pavilion and Slimline models,

20

subject to privileges or other valid specific objections not addressed in this order. Such production

21

shall be in accordance with Plaintiff’s “most reasonable” proposal, or on some other basis if agreed

22

by the parties.

23

II. Discovery of Other Lawsuits

24

Plaintiff also requests discovery of all documents concerning any lawsuit filed against HP in

25

which the allegations concern “inadequate power or power supply, faulty power supply units, failed

26

motherboards, overheating, melting, short-circuiting, fire, damage or malfunction caused by power

27

or voltage fluctuations, SYSTEM INSTABILITY, PERFORMANCE INSTABILITY, DISPLAY

28

CORRUPTION, and/or DISPLAY ABNORMALITY.” Plaintiff specifically requests documents

5

1

related to two lawsuits: In re HP Power Plug and Graphic Card Litigation, C06-2254, and The

2

NVIDIA GPU Litigation, C08-04312. HP contends that this request is too broad and that Plaintiff

3

should be limited to lawsuits alleging malfunctions due to insufficient power. Moreover, Plaintiff

4

has the burden of establishing that the discovery is relevant by linking the symptoms alleged in

5

other lawsuits to his particular situation. Furthermore, HP contends the two cases specifically cited

6

by Plaintiff are irrelevant because they involved allegations of malfunctions due to defective graphic

7

cards.

8

The Court agrees with HP that Plaintiff’s request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

For the Northern District of California

discovery of admissible evidence because Plaintiff requests information on all lawsuits concerning a

10

United States District Court

9

broad array of symptoms without regard for the underlying cause of the symptoms. However, HP’s

11

proposal is too narrow in that it does not consider allegations where the symptoms could have been

12

caused by insufficient power. Thus, the Court thinks discovery of documents in other cases

13

concerning allegations of malfunctioning due to insufficient power or allegations of overheating

14

(the primary symptom complained of here) for an unknown reason, is reasonably calculated to lead

15

admissible evidence, and shall be produced by HP.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

1

C12-00421 LHK (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Adam Gutride

3

Brandon S. Dimond

4

Kristen Gelinas Simplicio

5

Marie Ann McCrary

6

Samuel G. Liversidge

7

Seth Adam Safier

8

Timothy William Loose

[e-mail]

9

Todd Michael Kennedy

[e-mail]

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

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

7