Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 85

ORDER re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Enforcement of Court Order Requiring Production of Class List by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 67 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 77 Motion ; granting 80 Motion (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013)

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

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ 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 consultants, field

20

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

21

Jahan C. Sagafi, Ex. A (CMC Hrg. Tr. at 43:10-45:19)). Specifically, at the May 29, 2013 case

22

management conference, and as memorialized by the May 30, 2013 Case Management Order, the

23

Court ordered Defendant to produce a list of all individuals who have worked for HP in the

24

following three job titles -- Technical Solutions Consultants, Field Technical Support Consultants,

25

and Technology Consultants -- while classified as exempt during the period beginning (a) four

26

years before the filing of the initial Complaint in California (January 10, 2009 through the present)

27
28

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

1

or (b) three years before the filing of the initial Complaint in the United States (January 10, 2010

2

through the present) (the “Class List”).

3

Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on June 17, 2013, conceding that
“production of contact information for the Alleged Relevant Job Families should proceed.”

5

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement of Court Order Requiring Production of Class

6

List; Request for Order Adopting Protocol for Production of Class Contact Information, ECF No.

7

78-1 (“Opposition”),1 at 9 (emphasis in original). However, Defendant requests an order adopting

8

its proposed protocol for the production of the identified contact information, and limiting the

9

production of contact information to 10% of what the Court ordered. See id. Plaintiffs filed a

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

Reply on June 19, 2013. ECF No. 79. On June 21, 2013, Defendant filed an Administrative

11

Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Propose a Compromise Protocol for Production of Putative

12

Class Contact Information, ECF No. 80 (“Motion to File Sur-Reply”), and an attached Sur-Reply,

13

ECF No. 81 (“Sur-Reply”).2 On June 25, 2013, the Court requested a Sur-Sur-Reply from

14

Plaintiffs, ECF No. 83, and Plaintiffs responded, ECF No. 84 (“Sur-Sur-Reply”).

15

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), the Court concludes that the currently pending motions

16

are appropriate for determination without oral argument. Having considered the parties’

17

submissions and the relevant law, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. The Class List

18

shall include each individual’s name, last known address, job title, and dates in that position. The

19

Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to designate the Class List as “Highly Confidential-

20

Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” and DENIES Defendant’s proposed restrictions on the use of the Class List

21

as well as Defendant’s proposed opt-out, sampling, and logging protocols.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant initially filed its Opposition on June 17 as ECF No. 77. On the same day, Defendant
filed a second version of the Opposition that purports to make only formatting changes as ECF No.
78-1. The Court refers to the latter as Defendant’s operative Opposition.
2
The Court has reviewed the Sur-Reply, and does not believe the Sur-Reply brief was warranted
by new argument or evidence in Plaintiffs’ Reply. However, the Sur-Reply contains statements
and admissions helpful to the analysis here. As a result, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request
for leave to file the Sur-Reply. However, in the future, the parties are urged not to file additional
briefing.
2
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

1.

Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant’s request for the designation of the Class List as “Highly

2
3
4
5
6

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, which will
require destruction of the Class List upon final disposition of the action. See Reply at 1 n.1 (citing
Stipulated Protective Order § 13, ECF No. 38). Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to
designate the Class List as “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”
Defendant further proposes that the contact information should be used only for the

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

purposes of this lawsuit, and that the class list should not be distributed to any other person or
entity. Opp’n at 15. The Court finds that the Protective Order sufficiently addresses these
concerns. 3 Thus the Court DENIES Defendant’s request as moot.
2.

14
15

employees can opt out of having their names, addresses, job titles, and employment dates disclosed
to Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Plaintiffs vigorously oppose such a protocol, emphasizing the undue delay
of such a requirement and the non-invasive nature of the information that they have requested.
The Court recognizes that some courts have held that an opt-out procedure is required to

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Opt-Out Protocol
Despite the protections listed above, Defendant seeks to impose a protocol by which

12
13

Confidentiality Designation and Use of Class List

adequately protect the privacy interests of putative class members, see Pioneer Electronics (USA),
Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal. 4th 360, 370–371 (2007); Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior
Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 561 (2007). However, “[n]umerous courts in the Northern District
of California have allowed pre-certification discovery of putative class members’ confidential
information subject to a protective order, without requiring prior notice to the putative class
members.” Holman v. Experian Info Solutions, Inc., No. C 11-0180 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
59401, at *48 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012). See also Currie-White v. Blockbuster, Inc., No. C 09–
2593 MMC (MEJ), 2010 WL 1526314, at *4 (N.D. Cal. April 15, 2010) (holding that a protective
3

See Stipulated Protective Order § 7.1 (“A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is
disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for
prosecuting, defending, or attempting bilaterally or through a mediator to settle this litigation.
Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the
conditions described in this Order.”); § 7.4 (limiting scope of disclosure of Highly ConfidentialAttorneys’ Eyes Only” information).
3
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

order is sufficient to address the privacy issues regarding employer's disclosure of employees’

2

contact information in pre-certification discovery); Artis v. Deere & Co., No. 10–5289 WHA

3

(MEJ), 276 F.R.D. 348, 2011 WL 2580621, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2011) (holding that

4

Plaintiffs had a right to discovery of putative class members’ contact information with a protective

5

order in place); Bottoni v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 10-03602 LB, 2012 WL 8304347 (N.D. Cal. June

6

1, 2012) (recognizing that “ordinarily, protective orders are enough,” absent “special privacy

7

concerns”); Putnam v. Eli Lilly & Co., 508 F. Supp. 2d 812, 814 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing

8

that, in a similar situation, “ a protective order can strike the appropriate balance between the need

9

for information and privacy concerns.”). Ultimately, “a court maintains wide latitude in deciding

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

whether contact information of putative class members should be produced prior to class

11

certification and, if so, whether the employees are entitled to be notified before their contact

12

information is shared with opposing counsel.” York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919-GAF

13

(PJWx), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92274, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2009).

14

In this case, the Court is not persuaded that disclosing the requested information of putative

15

class members as “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” “constitutes such a serious invasion

16

of privacy that an opt-out notice is required.” Willner v. Manpower, Inc., No. 11-2846 JST (MEJ),

17

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43821, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. March 27, 2013) (holding that opt-out procedure

18

was unnecessary for disclosure of names and addresses of putative class members, but would be

19

required if phone numbers were requested). Specifically the Court finds that such disclosure does

20

not conflict with HP’s Global Master Privacy Policy, which effectively puts employees on notice

21

that their personal information may be transferred to third parties under certain conditions. See

22

Declaration of Wendy M. Lazerson, ECF No. 75, Ex. J (“HP does not transfer personal information

23

provided by [current and former employees] to third parties unless those third parties promise to

24

give the data the equivalent level of protection that HP provides.”).

25

However, recognizing the Defendant’s privacy concerns, the Court further ORDERS

26

Plaintiff's counsel to “inform each potential putative class member contacted by Plaintiff that he or

27

she has a right not to talk to counsel and that, if he or she elects not to talk to counsel, Plaintiff's

28

4
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

counsel will terminate the contact and not contact them again.” See Khalilpour v. CELLCO P’ship,

2

No. 09-02712-CW (MEJ), 2010 WL 1267749 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010). See also Feske v. MHC

3

Thousand Trails Ltd. P’ship, No. 11-4124-PSG, 2012 WL 1123587 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012)

4

(“Plaintiffs’ counsel shall inform each putative class member contacted by Plaintiffs that he or she

5

has a right not to talk to counsel and that, if he or she elects not to talk to counsel, Plaintiffs’

6

counsel will terminate the contact and not contact them again”).
Additionally, pursuant to Defendant’s suggestion in its Sur-Reply, the Court ORDERS that

7
8

the initial communication by Plaintiffs with prospective class members must make clear that HP

9

was compelled to disclose its employees’ information by Court order, and communicate the highly

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

confidential nature of this disclosure. Sur-Reply at 3.

11

Finally Defendant requests that any communication by Plaintiffs “should be fair and

12

accurate.” Sur-Reply at 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel are officers of the Court, and the Court has no

13

reason to believe that Plaintiffs’ counsel will not fulfill their ethical duties. Furthermore, the Court

14

notes that misleading, intimidating, or coercive communications are prohibited by Gulf Oil Co. v.

15

Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1981), and its progeny, without the need for an order from this

16

Court. See Villa v. United Site Servs. of California, Inc., 5:12-CV-00318-LHK, 2012 WL 5503550

17

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012). Thus, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request as moot.

18

The Court finds the protections above are sufficient to protect this limited disclosure of the

19

requested information.

20

3.

21

Sampling Protocol
Defendant estimates that the number of putative class members in the three job categories at

22

issue exceeds 20,000. Opp’n at 13. Rather than producing this information as already ordered by

23

the Court, Defendant’s Opposition proposed a “sampling protocol,” by which it would produce

24

only 10% of the information ordered to be produced by the Court.4 The Court finds that a

25
26
27
28

4

As noted by Defendant, some courts have ordered a sampling of contact information, especially
when requested by Plaintiffs, see, e.g., Murphy v. Target Corp., No. 09-1436-AJB (WMC), 2011
WL 2413439 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2011), or where defendant has made a showing of burden in
producing the full list, see, e.g., Currie-White v. Blockbuster, Inc., No. 09-2593-MMC (MEJ) 2010
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47071, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010). On the other hand, courts have also
5
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

“protocol” involving the production of only one-tenth of the information ordered to be produced by

2

the Court would constitute a violation of the Court’s Order. Although Defendant framed its

3

proposal as a procedural limitation, Defendant in fact seeks to relitigate the Order of this Court,

4

without filing a Motion for Reconsideration as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9.

5

Nor does Defendant provide a sufficient basis for the Court to reconsider its ruling.
Plaintiffs have represented that contact information for the entire requested list is “crucial” to

7

preparing for their class certification motion pursuant to Rule 23, particularly in light of the

8

“rigorous analysis” required by Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2552. Sur-Sur-Reply at

9

1. Given that the Court has denied Defendant’s proposed opt-out procedure, Defendant has not

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

indicated that it will incur any costs or assume any additional burden by producing the full list.

11

Moreover, Defendant’s proposed Sur-Reply concedes that it is willing to produce the full list, if an

12

opt-out protocol were imposed to protect employees’ privacy interests. See Sur-Reply at 1-2. As

13

discussed above, the Court has found that the current protocol sufficiently protects the employees’

14

privacy interests.

15

Although Defendant now raises concerns about Plaintiff’s “unsupervised” contact with

16

potential class members prior to class certification, Opp’n at 8, there is no record in this case that

17

would support a restriction limiting communications between parties and potential class members

18

beyond the privacy protections articulated above. See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 101-

19

02 (1981) (holding that an “order limiting communications between parties and potential class

20

members should be based on a clear record and specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need

21

for a limitation and the potential interference with the rights of the parties.”). However, to the

22

extent that Plaintiffs seek to use this contact information not only for discovery purposes, but also

23

to advise class members of the pendency of the action, such notice must be neutral, make clear that

24

the notice is not court ordered, and include contact information of Defendant’s counsel,

25
26
27
28

ordered the production of comparable or greater volumes of contact information. See, e.g., York v.
Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919-GAF (PJWx), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92274 (C.D. Cal. June 20,
2009), at *3 (rejecting defendant’s sampling proposal and ordering disclosure of information
regarding 124,606 employees).
6
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

accompanied by a warning that Defendant’s counsel does not represent the prospective class

2

members. Cf. Order of October 10, 2008, Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 08-2670 CW (N.D.

3

Cal.) (ECF No. 27). The parties shall meet and confer in person to agree on the content of this

4

notice by June 26, 2013. If the parties cannot agree, each party shall submit a proposed notice to

5

the Court by June 27, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.
Accordingly, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to comply with the Court’s Order to produce

6
7

the full Class List requested by Plaintiffs by June 26, 2013. If Defendant fails to comply with an

8

Order of this Court again, the Court may sanction both HP and HP’s counsel.

9

4.

Defendant further proposes that Plaintiff’s counsel should “maintain a list of every person

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Logging Protocol

11

from the Contact List with whom they make contact, separately designating any person who

12

refuses to speak or communicate with them, which list will be produced in connection with any

13

conditional certification motion and updated again with any class certification motion.” Opp’n at

14

9. Defendant provides no explanation of the need for such a log, although the Opposition does cite

15

one case in which such a log was used. See Opp’n at 15 (citing Feske v. MHC Thousand Trails

16

Ltd. P’ship, No. 11-CV-4124-PSG, 2012 WL 1123587, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012)). In light of

17

the compelling concerns raised by Plaintiffs regarding attorney-client privilege, attorney work

18

product protections, and potential witness intimidation, the Court DENIES Defendant’s proposed

19

logging protocol.

20

5.

21

Timing of Disclosure
The Court ordered the disclosure of the identified contact information on May 29, 2013.

22

By June 26, 2013, Defendant shall produce the Class List to Plaintiffs in Excel or comparable

23

form. As defined above, the Class List shall include the name, last known address, job title, and

24

dates in that position of all individuals who have worked for HP in any of the three job titles to

25

which the May 30 Case Management Order referred (i.e., Technical Solutions Consultants, Field

26

Technical Support Consultants, and Technology Consultants) while classified as exempt during the

27

period beginning (a) four years before the filing of the initial Complaint in California (January 10,

28

7
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST

1

2009 through the present) or (b) three years before the filing of the initial Complaint in the United

2

States (January 10, 2010 through the present).

3

IT IS SO ORDERD.

4

Dated: June 25, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
Case No.: 13-CV-0119-LHK
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION
OF CLASS LIST