Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Company Inc.
1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB
E.D. Cal.Jun 27, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (seasonal agricultural workers) sued Fowler entities and Ag Force alleging multiple state and federal wage-and-hour claims and sought class certification; the court granted class certification in part.
- Plaintiffs submitted 44 declarations from absent class members in support of certification; defendants later noticed depositions and document subpoenas for 25 of those declarants.
- Plaintiffs moved for a protective order to block depositions and document requests; the magistrate judge granted limited discovery to defendants: 15 depositions of declarants but without time or subject limits, and denied blanket protection against sanctions for non-appearance.
- Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order, arguing the wrong legal standard was applied and that depositions and document requests should be limited or quashed.
- The district court reviewed under the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard and (1) upheld the magistrate judge’s application of a permissive multi-factor approach to absent-class-member discovery, (2) found limited discovery to be sufficiently necessary and not improper, (3) concluded depositions were not unduly burdensome but imposed a four-hour limit per deposition, and (4) quashed/struck defendants’ document requests to absent class members as overbroad or unduly burdensome without prejudice to renewal based on deposition testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal standard for discovery of absent class members | Magistrate applied the wrong standard (relied on Arredondo); Ninth Circuit requires Clark-type factors | Arredondo factors are appropriate and subsume relevant Clark considerations | District court: No clear error or contrary-to-law — Arredondo-based multi-factor test acceptable in absence of Ninth Circuit authority |
| Necessity of deposing absent declarants | Depositions unnecessary; information available from other sources and class-wide evidence | Depositions necessary to test sworn declarations and explore variations between crews and defenses (and possible decertification) | Held necessary in part: defendants may take limited depositions of those who injected themselves via declarations |
| Improper purpose (chilling or decimating class) | Motive is to learn trial plan, shrink the class, or take undue advantage of members | Seeking evidence to challenge liability and potentially support decertification is proper; defendants represent they will not seek sanctions or exclude non-appearing members | Held not improper: discovery to support decertification or test declarations is permissible; representations against sanctions weigh against finding improper purpose |
| Burden, scope, and documents | Depositions unduly burdensome; deponents need counsel and document requests improper under Rule 30/45 and overbroad | Not unduly burdensome; depositions efficient; some documents (e.g., tool receipts) relevant | Held depositions allowed but limited to four hours each; document requests to absent class members quashed/struck as overbroad/unduly burdensome, without prejudice to renewal if justified at deposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockwell Intern. v. Pos–A–Traction Indus., 712 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1983) (standard of review for magistrate judge nondispositive orders)
- United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984) (distinguishing review of factual findings and legal conclusions on magistrate review)
- Clark v. Universal Builders, Inc., 501 F.2d 324 (7th Cir. 1974) (early articulation that party seeking depositions of absent class members bears burden to show necessity and lack of motive to take undue advantage)
- McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 514 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (absent-class-member discovery ordinarily disfavored and factors for permitting it)
- Baldwin & Flynn v. Nat’l Safety Assocs., 149 F.R.D. 598 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (heightened burden to justify depositions of absent class members)
- McCarthy v. Paine Webber Grp., Inc., 164 F.R.D. 309 (D. Conn. 1995) (multi-factor test limiting absent-class-member discovery to narrowly necessary, non-harassing, directly relevant information)