Victorino et al v. FCA US LLC

Filing 52

MINUTE ORDER denying #36 Motion to Compel. (fth)

MINUTE ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Name:

Victorino et al v. FCA US
LLC

Case No.:

16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB

Hon. Jill L. Burkhardt Ct. Deputy Carolina Lopez Rptr. Tape: n/a
Having considered the papers before the Court, including arguments made at the
March 30, 2017 motion hearing and in supplemental briefing filed thereafter (ECF
Nos. 36-38, 40, 44-47), for the reasons stated at the hearing and summarized below,
the Court enters its tentative ruling and hereby DENIES Defendant's motion to
compel (ECF No. 36) and SUSTAINS Plaintiffs' objections on the grounds of
privilege and relevance. The Court concludes that California law governs Plaintiffs'
claim of privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 because: (1) as pled, there is
no federal question jurisdiction for this case under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act; (2) this case is in federal court by virtue of diversity jurisdiction only; and (3)
state law supplies the rule of decision for each of Plaintiffs' claims (including
Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action for alleged breach of implied warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2303 et seq.). As a result of (1),
(2) and (3), this case is more akin to the line of diversity jurisdiction cases holding
that state law governs privilege determinations. It is undisputed that, under
California privilege law, the retainer agreements are non-discoverable, privileged
documents.
In addition, regardless of whether California or federal privilege law applies, the
motion is further denied because Defendant fails to demonstrate that the retainer
agreements are relevant here. Retainer agreements may be relevant to class
certification issues, but Defendant has not: presented any factual basis calling into
question the adequacy of these putative class representatives; identified any
potential conflict with the putative class members; or given any indication that the
named plaintiffs and their counsel do not have the resources to pursue this class
action. Plaintiffs' counsel have declared that the retainer agreements do not contain
the type of incentive provision that was deemed suspect in Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g
Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), and defendant has not provided the Court with
any reason to question that representation. Further, Defendant cites case law that
retainer agreements may be relevant to attorneys' fees at the end of the case. If so,
they can be requested then. Moreover, Plaintiffs' depositions should provide
Defendant with an adequate opportunity for it to explore Rule 23 issues.
Date: April 25, 2017

Initials: lc2