Brinker v. Normandin's
Filing
70
Order on Discovery Dispute Joint Report 3 62 by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (hrllc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2015)
E-Filed 11/20/15
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ALAN BRINKER,
Case No. 14-cv-03007-EJD (HRL)
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT 3
9
10
NORMANDIN'S, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 62
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Alan Brinker (“Brinker”) sues Normandin d/b/a Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram
13
(“Normandin”) and OneCommand, Inc. (“OneCommand”) in this class-action for alleged
14
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq. Brinker served
15
OneCommand with an interrogatory that requests, among other information, the names, addresses,
16
and phone numbers of putative class members. Dkt. No. 62 at 2. OneCommand argued the
17
disclosure of information about putative class members “is inappropriate and premature unless and
18
until a class is certified.”
19
obligation with respect to the interrogatory when it produced a list of approximately 5,800 unique
20
cellphone numbers “whose owners are similarly situated with Plaintiff in that they received, on or
21
about July 1, 2010, the same call on behalf of Normandin’s that Plaintiff allegedly received in
22
March 2014.” Normandin disagreed with OneCommand and they were unable to resolve their
23
dispute. Normandin and OneCommand filed discovery dispute joint report (“DDJR”) 3, which
24
asks the court to resolve “[w]hether . . . OneCommand is required to provide a supplemental
25
answer to [the interrogatory].” Dkt. No. 62 at 1.
26
OneCommand also argued it had already fulfilled its discovery
Discussion
27
OneCommand’s primary argument—that information about a putative class is not relevant
28
prior to class certification and therefore should not be produced—relies on the example of Knutson
v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, 254 F.R.D. 553 (D. Minn. 2008), but the court does
1
not read Knutson as a case that applies or supports the rule articulated by OneCommand. The
2
magistrate judge in that case granted a motion to compel the production of information about
3
putative class members. The district judge concluded the plaintiff’s moving papers failed to
4
clearly assert any justification for the production of that information except for the desire to solicit
5
new opt-in Fair Labor Standards Act plaintiffs. The district judge therefore declined to consider
6
the merits of whether the information was producible as relevant to the question of class
7
certification. Id. at 556.
OneCommand argues in the alternative that the court should balance the relevance of the
9
requested information against “the privacy interests of the potential class members in not being
10
contacted by Plaintiff’s counsel.” OneCommand provides no explanation of which particular
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
privacy rights the court should balance or why the proper result of a balancing act would favor
12
OneCommand. Instead, OneCommand cites a series of cases that are neither binding on the court
13
nor persuasive in this instance. For example, OneCommand supports its terse privacy argument
14
with a citation to Palmer v. Convergys Corp., 7:10-CV-145 (HL), 2011 WL 1326183 (M.D. Ga.
15
Apr. 6, 2011). The Palmer opinion, with reasoning similar to the reasoning in Knutson, notes that
16
information sought solely for the purpose of gaining new Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in
17
plaintiffs might not be relevant and discoverable. Id. at 2. It does not discuss privacy whatsoever.
18
Brinker, unlike the plaintiffs in Knutson and Palmer, does not hope to discover potential
19
Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in plaintiffs through the requested discovery. Rather, he requests
20
information for its relevance to whether class certification is proper under Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 23.
22
information about the putative class is common in this context. See, e.g., Babbitt v. Albertson’s,
23
Inc., C-92-1884 (PJH) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1992), 1992 WL 605652. The court is persuaded by
24
Brinker’s argument that some of the information it requests is relevant to typicality. Dkt. No. 62
25
at 3.
Dkt. No. 62 at 3-4.
The court agrees with Brinker that the production of
26
The court rejects OneCommand’s argument that Brinker, by filing a motion for class
27
certification, has admitted that it needs no further information with respect to typicality. Brinker’s
28
motion for class certification unequivocally asks the court to hold the motion in abeyance until
2
1
additional evidence has been produced by Defendants and filed by Brinker. Dkt. No. 50 at 8.
2
Brinker clearly filed the motion for class certification early in order to avoid the potential adverse
3
effects of a pending Supreme Court ruling, id., not because he already possessed all the relevant
4
evidence.
The court is not persuaded, however, that all of the information requested by Brinker
6
should be discovered. Brinker’s interrogatory asks for the production of information about how
7
many calls OneCommand made to each putative class member and the dates on which those calls
8
were made, and that seems appropriate, but it also requests each putative class member’s “title,
9
business address and telephone number, email address, occupation, and employer and state the
10
entity’s full name, address telephone number and web address.” Dkt. No. 62 at 2. Much of the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
information requested by Brinker, beyond who called whom when, appears either irrelevant or
12
cumulative with respect to the question of class certification.
Conclusion
13
14
Brinker has persuaded the court that additional information relevant to class certification
15
should be produced. The court rejects most of OneCommand’s contrary arguments, but agrees
16
that Brinker requests certain details that are not relevant to the question of class certification. The
17
court believes Brinker’s legitimate need to discover evidence as to class typicality will be served
18
by the production of the names of putative class members, the phone number for each putative
19
class member, and the date and time for each occasion on which each putative class member was
20
called. OneCommand shall produce those facts within 28 days, but the court shall not compel
21
production of the other details requested by Brinker in its interrogatory.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/20/15
24
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
3
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?