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)

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