Wysocki v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc
3:22-cv-05453
| W.D. Wash. | Apr 28, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs sued ZoomInfo and others; defendants earlier moved to stay discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss and to strike class allegations; the Court partially granted that stay, allowing limited discovery about defendants’ roles.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing Contact Contributor did not collect the named plaintiffs’ data and submitted two employee declarations analyzing internal tools and records to support that position.
- Plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery stay so they could obtain evidence to oppose the standing challenge, arguing defendants’ affidavits rely on internal materials not in the complaint and effectively convert the motion into one for summary judgment.
- Defendants offered to produce witnesses and limited written discovery about the origin of the named plaintiffs’ information but opposed broader discovery requests.
- The Court found limited jurisdictional discovery appropriate, rejected plaintiffs’ overbroad 20-topic proposal, and narrowed discovery to specific topics limited to ZoomInfo Technologies LLC.
- The Court ordered production within 45 days, depositions to be identified within seven days and completed within ~60 days, struck the standing motion without prejudice pending completion of the ordered discovery, and denied other discovery requests beyond the prior order’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay should be lifted to permit discovery on standing | Need discovery because defendants’ declarations rely on internal data outside the complaint | Declarations show no standing; offer limited witness testimony and written discovery instead | Partially lift stay: grant limited jurisdictional discovery from ZoomInfo Technologies LLC |
| Whether defendants’ outside-the-complaint affidavits convert the motion into summary judgment requiring full discovery | Yes — affidavits use documents plaintiffs cannot access, so discovery is needed | Affidavits are sufficient but defendants will provide witnesses and limited records | Court permits targeted jurisdictional discovery but strikes the motion without prejudice so it can be refiled after discovery |
| Scope of plaintiffs’ requested discovery | Proposes 20 topics to test provenance of data and standing | Proposes depositions of declarants and narrow written discovery about data origin | Plaintiffs’ list is overbroad; Court grants nine narrowly tailored topics (sources, contracts with vendors, documents reviewed, employee/third-party roles, extent of stored info, deleted info, retention policies, depositions of the two declarants and a Traceability UI witness) limited to ZoomInfo Technologies LLC |
| Timing and completion of discovery | Needs adequate time to gather facts to oppose standing motion | Will cooperate within proposed limited scope and timelines | Court orders production within 45 days, depositions identified within 7 days and completed within ~60 days; denies other discovery requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1987) (dicta recognizing that courts may stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion)
- St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1989) (discovery is appropriate if it is possible plaintiff can demonstrate jurisdictional facts when given the opportunity)