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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?