Brecher et al v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. et al

Filing 115

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 112 Joint MOTION for Discovery Further Responses to 2nd Set of Interrogatories. As provided in the attached Order, Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories 21 and 22 is denied and Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory 23 is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/15/13. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL BRECHER, individually
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al.,

12
13
14
15

vs.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
[ECF NO. 112]

CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09cv1344-CAB (MDD)

Before the Court is the joint motion for determination of a discovery
dispute filed on November 1, 2013. (ECF No. 112). The dispute involves
responses to three interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs upon
Defendants. (Id.).
Procedurally, the case is on its Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”)
which has withstood a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 89). On behalf of a
class, Plaintiffs allege violations of law stemming from the creation of
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Plaintiffs claim that the merger adversely
impacted the stock incentive plan he and the putative “Stock Award Class”
were provided by their former employer, Smith Barney. Plaintiffs also
allege that beginning in 2008, he and the putative “Business Expense
Class” were not reimbursed by their employer for business expenses -

-1-

09cv1344-CAB (MDD)

1 portions of their commission checks paid to their sales assistants.1
2

No class has been certified. The operative Case Management Order

3 requires that all fact and expert discovery necessary to support or oppose
4 class certification be completed by February 3, 2014. (ECF No. 101).
Legal Standard

5
6

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad

7 discovery, authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding “any
8 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed.
9 R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of
10 any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id.
11 Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any information
12 “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and
13 need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable.

Id. There is no

14 requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular
15 issue in the case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that “bears
16 on” or could reasonably lead to a matter that could bear on, any issue that
17 is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
18 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine
19 relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751
20 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit
21 discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or
22 duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more
23 convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
24 Limits also should be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the
25 likely benefits. Id.
26

“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired

27
28

1

For a more detailed exposition of the facts, see the Order Denying
Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 89).
-2-

09cv1344-CAB (MDD)

1 under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must
2 answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with
3 specificity or by “answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.”
4 Id. at 33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances
5 to answer an interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making
6 those records available to the interrogating party. Id. at 33(d).
7

Prior to certification of a class, some discovery regarding the class

8 may be appropriate. See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d
9 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition
10 that often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class
11 certification and that some discovery will be warranted.”). Discovery likely
12 is warranted where the requested discovery will resolve factual issues
13 necessary for the determination of whether the action may be maintained
14 as a class action. Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205,
15 210 (9th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs carry the burden of making either a prima
16 facie showing that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) to maintain a
17 class action have been met or “that discovery is likely to produce
18 substantiation of the class allegations.” Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416,
19 1424 (9th Cir. 1985).
20
21

Analysis
In an Order filed on October 7, 2013, in connection with an earlier

22 discovery dispute, the Court, among other things, ordered Defendants to
23 disclose contact information for 25 of the 179 member Stock Award Class
24 and for 100 of the 949 member Business Expense Class. (ECF No. 108). In
25 the instant dispute regarding Set Two Interrogatories 21 and 22, as limited
26 by agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs seek disclosure of the amount of
27 commissions allocated to their support staff by the 100 members of the
28 Business Expense Class whose contact information will be provided
-3-

09cv1344-CAB (MDD)

1 pursuant to the earlier Order of the Court. In the dispute regarding Set
2 Two Interrogatory 23, as limited by agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs
3 seek disclosure of the total compensation of 30 randomly selected support
4 staff of financial advisors broken down by regular compensation and
5 compensation derived from commission allocations from financial advisors.
6

1. Interrogatories 21 and 22

7

According to Defendants, during the initial meet and confer sessions

8 regarding these Interrogatories, Plaintiffs agreed to accept the requested
9 information for 40 financial advisors (20 randomly selected from each of the
10 two Business Expense Class sub-classes).

After some negotiations,

11 Defendants acceded to the demand. (ECF No. 112-10 Exhs. D-H). Then,
12 according to Defendants, Plaintiffs increased their demand to the 100
13 advisors to be identified pursuant to the Court’s earlier Order. The timing
14 suggests that Plaintiffs changed their position as a consequence of the
15 Order filed on October 7, 2013.
16

There is much unproductive gamesmanship afoot. The point of the

17 Court’s Order requiring disclosure of the contact information for 100
18 financial advisors of the 949 putative Business Expense Class members was
19 to allow Plaintiffs to attempt to communicate with these individuals and
20 obtain whatever information Plaintiffs believe they need to substantiate
21 their claims and class allegations. It was not intended to open the door to
22 class merits discovery from Defendants related to this sample.
23

Based upon Mantolete, the Court is not convinced that pre-

24 certification disclosure by Defendants of the amounts allocated by each
25 advisor informs any issues related to class certification.

Speaking

26 generally, the issues appear to be the circumstances under which advisors
27 determined to participate or not in the program and whether the payments
28 generated constituted necessary business expenses of Defendants which
-4-

09cv1344-CAB (MDD)

1 were charged to the Plaintiffs and which were not reimbursed as may be
2 required by law. The amounts allocated may be relevant to damages in the
3 event of certification but are not relevant pre-certification.
4

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to compel further disclosures

5 to Interrogatories 21 and 22. The Court does not interpret Defendants’
6 willingness to produce this information regarding 40 advisors as part of the
7 meet and confer process as a concession of pre-certification relevance.
8

2. Interrogatory 23

9

Plaintiffs seek anonymized compensation information for 30

10 California-based staff employees assigned to assist financial advisors
11 broken down by categories of compensation. Plaintiffs assert that this
12 information informs class certification issues by providing a basis for
13 Plaintiffs to assert that the allocations were a business necessity by
14 Defendants to retain these employees – that otherwise their compensation
15 would be so low as to discourage them from staying on. If necessary and
16 charged to advisors but unreimbursed, Plaintiffs theory may hold water.
17

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this information is relevant to

18 class certification. Defendants argue their own theory that the financial
19 advisors actually made no allocations or payments - that all payments were
20 made by Defendants and are not properly viewed as business expenses to
21 the advisors - but that argument is better left to the defense of the class
22 certification motion.
23

Defendants have provided the requested information limited to the

24 support staff assigned to the named Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 112-10, Exh. A).
25 The data provided appears to be for 8 such employees. The Court agrees
26 with Plaintiffs that limiting the disclosure to the support staff for the
27 named Plaintiffs is not a sufficient sample. According to the motion, there
28 were over 500 such support employees in California during the relevant
-5-

09cv1344-CAB (MDD)

1 period. (ECF No. 112 at 27).
2

The Court finds that, as modified, Plaintiffs’ request is reasonable and

3 grants the motion to compel compensation information for a total of 30
4 (inclusive of the data previously provided) California-based support staff
5 broken down by type of compensation for the class period. The information
6 may be provided by employee number or Defendants may further
7 anonymize that information by using some other identification scheme but
8 retaining the code in the event that the actual employee needs to be
9 identified later. The remaining approximately 22 employees should be
10 selected randomly.
Conclusion

11
12

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories

13 21 and 22 is DENIED.

The motion to compel further responses to

14 Interrogatories 23 is GRANTED, to the extent provided herein. Such
15 further responses are to be made within twenty (20) days of this Order
16 absent further Order of the Court.
17
18 DATED: November 15, 2013
19
20

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-

09cv1344-CAB (MDD)