Artis v. Deere & Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69849
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This is a joint discovery dispute filed June 24, 2011 in a Title VII and California FEHA class action against Deere & Co. and JDL, seeking contact information for putative class members and percipient witnesses.
- Plaintiff Artis seeks production of names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails to develop class certification evidence under Rule 23.
- Defendants oppose arguing Wal-Mart v. Dukes narrows pre-certification discovery to company-wide policy proofs and privacy concerns.
- Judge James finds Plaintiff has pled a prima facie Rule 23 case and that contact information is a common pre-certification discovery practice, subject to a protective order.
- Court orders Defendants to disclose contact information of all putative class members and directs the parties to draft a protective order within 14 days.
- In a separate ruling, Judge Alsup denies relief from the discovery order, extends the deadline for adding named plaintiffs, and allows a motion for leave to add by Sept. 22, 2011, with scheduling adjustments limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to pre-certification contact info | Artis seeks names and contact data to support Rule 23 elements. | Wal-Mart requires company-wide policy proof; privacy concerns bar disclosure. | Plaintiff entitled to contact info; disclosure ordered with protective safeguards. |
| Role of Wal-Mart Dukes in pre-certification discovery | Wal-Mart does not foreclose discovery here; need not prove policy-wide bias yet. | Wal-Mart controls the scope, requiring broad policy evidence for class. | Wal-Mart does not bar the requested discovery at this stage; issues resolved on later merits. |
| Privacy balancing in pre-certification disclosure | Public interest in discovery outweighs privacy intrusions. | Privacy rights require protection and limited disclosure. | Privacy interests outweighed by need; protective order acceptable to limit use. |
| Pre-certification discovery standards and necessity | Discovery is necessary to assess numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. | Discovery should be limited until certification posture is clarified. | Discovery of contact info appropriate; necessary to prepare class-certification record. |
| Relief from nondispositive pretrial order and extension of time to add named plaintiffs | Defendants delayed production; extend deadlines accordingly. | Oppose extensions; relief unnecessary. | Relief denied on the Rule 27 motion; extension granted in part for leave to add named plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) (discovery at pre-certification to substantiate class allegations)
- Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1977) (discovery to determine class maintainability)
- United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (deference to magistrate nondispositive rulings; standard of review)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (limits on class certification commonality; center on merits)
- Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (privacy balancing in disclosure of contact information)
- Lantz v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.4th 1839 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (privacy considerations in discovery balancing)