Garza v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc.
5:15-cv-05742
N.D. Cal.Jul 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Garza filed a putative FCRA class action seeking to represent applicants, employees, and prospective employees who applied during the five years before filing.
- Defendants Brinderson Constructors, Inc. and Brinderson L.P. opposed broad discovery requests seeking bases for defenses and class-opposition contentions, and copies/counts of FCRA disclosure/authorization forms.
- Defendants had asked the district judge to phase discovery; the judge declined and no motion to phase discovery was later filed.
- Parties exchanged initial disclosures in August 2016 and have been in active discovery for over six months; class-certification motion due October 19, 2017; fact discovery cutoff November 6, 2017.
- Plaintiff served interrogatories and RFPs (Dec. 13, 2016) at issue: (1) contention interrogatories and documents supporting defenses/class-opposition; and (2) identification/production of FCRA disclosure and authorization forms used during the proposed class period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brinderson must fully answer contention interrogatories and produce documents supporting its defenses and opposition to class certification | Garza: requests are relevant to class-certification and merits and necessary for upcoming certification motion | Brinderson: contention discovery is premature because substantial discovery has not occurred; discovery should be phased | Court: Not premature; ordered Brinderson to supplement Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5 and produce non‑privileged documents responsive to RFP Nos. 4 and 9; ordered responses to follow normal supplementation rules |
| Scope of discovery for FCRA disclosure/authorization forms (counts and blank forms) | Garza: seeks counts and blank, unsigned disclosure/authorization forms for the full five‑year class period defined in complaint | Brinderson: offered only counts and the same form as plaintiff for two years prior to filing (statute-of-limitations period) | Court: Broader discovery is appropriate given the complaint's class definition; ordered supplementation of Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 and production responsive to RFP Nos. 23 and 34 as clarified by plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- None (opinion relied on non‑reported district court authorities and treatises; no key authorities with official reporter citations were cited in the opinion.)