Opperman v. Kong Technologies, Inc., 3:13-cv-00453

This is a putative class action (consolidated) alleging Apple and app developers allowed apps to upload/store/share users' contact data; Theda Sandiford was one of 14 named plaintiffs who downloaded several apps and alleges nonconsensual access to her contacts.
Sandiford moved to withdraw as a putative class representative and dismiss her individual claims without prejudice because of increased work demands and potential conflicts with a customer who is a defendant.
Defendants had served written discovery on Sandiford before learning she intended to withdraw; no deposition of Sandiford had been noticed when she moved to dismiss.
Apple and Instagram did not oppose dismissal without prejudice but asked the Court to condition dismissal on Sandiford providing substantive discovery responses and making herself available for deposition if warranted.
The Court granted dismissal without prejudice but conditioned it on Sandiford providing further responses to the outstanding written discovery by a set deadline; the Court declined to condition dismissal on a future or hypothetical deposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal should be allowed under Rule 41(a)(2)	Sandiford seeks voluntary dismissal; says no prejudice will follow	Defendants do not oppose dismissal but seek conditions	Allowed — dismissal permitted (no plain legal prejudice shown)
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Wants dismissal without prejudice to remain eligible for class membership	Defendants do not oppose without prejudice	Without prejudice — appropriate given factors and lack of defendant-specific prejudice
Whether dismissal may be conditioned on further discovery responses	Sandiford implied withdrawal affects her obligations	Defendants request conditioning on completion of outstanding written discovery	Conditioned — Court requires substantive responses to outstanding written discovery before dismissal becomes effective
Whether dismissal may be conditioned on future deposition	Sandiford argued no current obligation to sit for deposition	Defendants sought right to depose her if later warranted	Declined — Court will not condition dismissal on hypothetical/future, un-noticed depositions

Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal should be granted unless defendant shows plain legal prejudice)
Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94 (9th Cir. 1996) (plain legal prejudice includes loss of defenses or inability to conduct necessary discovery)
Williams v. Peralta Cnty. Coll. Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (granting voluntary dismissal where defendant did not oppose)
Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F. Supp. 1439 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (factors for conditioning dismissal include defendant effort, plaintiff delay, and explanation for dismissal)
Dysthe v. Basic Research, LLC, 273 F.R.D. 625 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (noting a named plaintiff cannot necessarily avoid deposition obligations by moving to dismiss when deposition properly noticed)