Boeynaems v. La Fitness International, LLC
285 F.R.D. 331
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Consolidated class action against LA Fitness alleging deceptive practices and breaches related to cancellation of memberships.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23; discovery disputes are central to whether certification is appropriate.
- Case raises substantial asymmetry in discovery burdens: Plaintiffs have few documents; LA Fitness has millions of documents and ESP materials.
- Court has previously guided discovery via a “discovery fence” metaphor to balance scope and cost.
- Court addresses cost allocation of discovery prior to class certification and its impact on the Hydrogen Peroxide framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should allocate discovery costs before class certification. | Plaintiffs should share costs when discovery is expensive and asymmetric. | Defendant bears its costs unless substantial merit justifies shifting to plaintiffs. | Yes; cost shifting permitted prior to certification under fairness principles. |
| Whether discovery should focus on common issues relevant to class certification. | Discovery should illuminate national policies and practices affecting class claims. | Discovery should be proportional and not overbroad before certification. | Discovery should primarily target common issues affecting certification. |
| Whether the “discovery fence” should control scope of discoverable materials. | Fence should be flexible but expansive enough to test class viability. | Fence should limit burdensome or non-probative materials. | Fence governs what is inside/outside; cost-bearing for inside items by plaintiffs. |
| Whether ESI and paper discovery costs justify shifting some burden. | Plaintiffs should not bear disproportionate costs; class interests justify sharing. | Costs should be allocated to reflect burden and potential benefit to the class. | Court allows cost allocation informed by factors including burden, benefit, and resources. |
| What specific categories of documents remain inside the fence at this stage? | Include corporate policies, member-related notes, and related ESI. | Limit to necessary items; avoid overbreadth and privilege issues. | Inside fence: specified corporate policies and certain ESI; outside: broad, unspecified categories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (class-action considerations alter discovery strategy and costs)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (courts may condition discovery on payment of costs under Rule 26(c))
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (seven-factor test for cost shifting in ESI discovery)
- Simms v. Center for Corrections Health & Policy Studies, 272 F.R.D. 36 (D.D.C. 2011) (minor cost-shifting approval when plaintiff lacks resources)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1974) (class certification standards require fair considerations of costs and merits)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (requires common questions to drive resolution of the litigation)