Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 83

ORDER. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on June 24, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
ERIC BENEDICT, RICHARD BOWDERS, and )
KILRICANOS VIEIRA, on behalf of themselves )
and classes of those similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT
ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

On June 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Enforcement of Court Order Requiring

18

Production of Class List, ECF No. 67 (“Motion”). The Motion seeks to enforce the Court’s order

19

that HP produce “contact information” for “three job titles [-] technical solutions, filed technical

20

support consultants, and technology consultants.” See Mot. at 2 (citing Declaration of Jahan C.

21

Sagafi, Ex. A (CMC Hrg. Tr. at 43:10-45:19)).

22

Defendant filed an Opposition on June 17, 2013, conceding that “production of contact

23

information for the Alleged Relevant Job Families should proceed.” Opposition to Plaintiffs’

24

Motion for Enforcement of Court Order Requiring Production of Class List; Request for Order

25

Adopting Protocol for Production of Class Contact Information, ECF No. 78-1 (“Opposition”).

26

However, Defendant requests an order adopting its proposed “protocol” for the production of the

27
28

1
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

identified contact information, and limiting the production of contact information to 10% of the

2

requested information. See id.

3

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs “do not have—and have not articulated—a need for the

4

contact information of the entire putative class.” Opp’n at 13. However, Defendant also concedes

5

that Plaintiffs have articulated the following need for the requested contact information: the need to

6

obtain opt-ins before the statute of limitations has passed. Rather, Defendant notes that Plaintiffs

7

have not articulated the need for discovery to prepare a class certification motion as the basis for

8

Plaintiffs’ request for contact information of the entire putative class. Defendant cites district court

9

cases from other circuits which hold that the need to obtain opt-ins is an insufficient basis to order

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the production of the contact information of putative class members.

11

Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to file a Sur-Sur-Reply by June 25, 2013, not to exceed two

12

pages, addressing whether Plaintiffs need the contact information of the entire putative class for

13

discovery for Plaintiffs’ class certification motion. The Court will not entertain any further

14

briefing on this matter.

15

IT IS SO ORDERD.

16
17

Dated: June 24, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST