Barker v. Insight Global, LLC

Filing 88

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 82 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 3; denying 83 defendant's administrative motion for leave to submit additional exhibits. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No.5:16-cv-07186-BLF (HRL) ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 3 v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 82 Defendants. 17 18 Former employee John Barker sues Insight Global, LLC (“Insight”), a staffing company, 19 both for allegedly unpaid compensation as well as for a declaration that his employment 20 agreement’s restrictions on his mobility and activities after termination are unlawful and void. 21 With respect to the latter claim, he seeks class action relief on behalf of other Insight employees 22 who were subject to the same or similar agreements. Discovery has been proceeding apace even 23 though the pleadings are not settled. In fact, Insight’s motion to dismiss Barker’s current 24 complaint is set for hearing in September. However, in view of the presiding judge’s admonition 25 to promptly tee up class certification, plaintiff filed his class certification motion on June 20, 2017 26 and set it for hearing in November, less than 4 months from now. 27 28 Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #3 is about plaintiff’s efforts to obtain class 1 discovery.1 Barker propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents to 2 defendant back in March 2017. He seeks typical discovery on the size and scope of the putative 3 class and documentation on common legal and factual issues. He also wants contact information 4 on the putative class members. Insight’s response was: “No.” No class discovery at all. Despite 5 meet and confer efforts, it would not budge. Insight objected to producing any class discovery because, it argued, Barker is not an 6 7 adequate class representative, thus lacking standing. And, even if he had standing, the alleged 8 class claims fail to measure up to what Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requires. In other words, Insight believes that this court should take defendant’s word for it and rule 10 that Barker is so clearly not a proper class representative, and that the class claims are so patently 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 infirm, that any class discovery should be denied. Perhaps defendant does not appreciate that such 12 a ruling would almost be tantamount to a dispositive order, which this court may not issue. Even 13 if it could, it would not do so. The proper way to challenge the class claims and Barker’s 14 suitability as a class representative is in the motion for class certification. At this time, plaintiff is 15 entitled to discovery on the class claims. As a fall back, in the event that this court does conclude that contact information on the 16 17 putative class members should be disclosed, Insight urges the court to order implementation of a 18 preliminary “opt-out” process. That is, the class members would be contacted and told that, unless 19 they opted out, their contact information would be disclosed to plaintiff. Then, plaintiff would 20 only get the information for those who did not say they wanted “out.” This, argues defendant, 21 would protect the privacy of the class members who did not want to get involved. Given the relative complexity in implementing such a procedure, as well as the substantial 22 23 time it probably would consume, this court will not require it. At worst, skipping the opt-out 24 “prelude” to plaintiff receiving contact information for class members would work a modest 25 incursion on the members’ privacy. Under the circumstances, this seems acceptable. Insight shall provide substantive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5 and produce the 26 27 1 28 Defendant’s motion for leave to submit additional exhibits (Dkt. 83) in connection with DDJR #3 is denied. 2 1 information sought in Request for Production No. 71. Insight’s objections are overruled. 2 (Objections, if any, based on attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine are not 3 overruled, subject to defendant producing an informative privilege log.) Responses and 4 production shall be made within 10 days from the date this order is filed. 5 6 SO ORDERED. Dated: July 18, 2017 7 8 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?