Robinson v. The Chefs' Warehouse
3:15-cv-05421
| N.D. Cal. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Shoan Robinson and Sean Clark brought individual and putative class claims (wage/hour and discrimination) against The Chef’s Warehouse West Coast, LLC; putative class: drivers, driver trainers, dispatchers in California on/after Oct. 26, 2011 (≈100 members).
- Plaintiffs served Interrogatory No. 2 seeking identification and contact information for putative class members.
- Parties earlier agreed to produce a random sample via a Belaire-West opt-out notice (Plaintiffs to bear cost); Defendant later withdrew that agreement.
- Given the small class size, Plaintiffs sought the entire class list instead of a sample.
- Defendant opposed production arguing (1) the named plaintiffs lack typicality (based on declarations in an unrelated Chicas matter) and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Motor Carrier Exemption.
- Court evaluated proportionality, privacy concerns, and precedent on pre-certification class discovery and ordered Defendant to produce names, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and job titles for the entire putative class within 21 days; no opt-out required; production subject to existing protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to putative-class contact information pre-certification | Need the class list to substantiate class allegations and for communications; discovery proportional given ~100 members | Discovery unwarranted because plaintiffs lack typicality and claims may be barred by Motor Carrier Exemption | Court ordered full production of contact info for all putative class members as proportional and not unduly burdensome; privacy addressed by protective order |
| Whether a prima facie showing of Rule 23 prerequisites is required before class discovery | Plaintiffs need not make a prima facie showing to obtain information that may substantiate class claims | Insists on showing lack of typicality and other defenses before disclosure | Court: prima facie showing is not mandatory in all cases; plaintiffs entitled to discovery here to substantiate class allegations |
| Whether Defendant may impose a Belaire-West opt-out before producing contact info | Plaintiffs prefer no opt-out given delay and small class size | Defendant sought to revert to opt-out procedure previously discussed | Court rejected allowing an opt-out now and ordered production without opt-out due to passage of time and small class size |
| Whether Defendant may communicate with current employees | N/A | Defendant reserved right to contact its employees | Court noted Defendant may communicate with existing employees (permitted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (recognizes class counsel may contact potential class members pre-certification to gather information)
- Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935 (district courts have discretion over class-certification discovery)
- Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304 (district court should allow discovery when information is solely in defendant's possession to test maintainability of class action)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (Rule 26(c) gives courts broad discretion to issue protective orders)
- Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416 (no abuse of discretion denying pre-certification discovery when plaintiffs fail to show prima facie Rule 23 prerequisites)