Oliveira v. Language Line Services, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SHARON OLIVEIRA, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02410-PCP (VKD) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DECEMBER 5, 2023 10 v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORY 11 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et NO. 1 al., 12 Re: Dkt. No. 56 Defendants. 13 14 The parties ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning whether plaintiffs may obtain 15 contact and employment-related information of putative class members in California using a 16 Belaire-West opt-out process. Dkt. No. 56. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution 17 without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 18 Plaintiffs ask the Court to order defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1, 19 which asks for “the full name, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, dates of employment, job 20 titles, and locations of employment of the California Class Members who worked for You at any 21 time during the California Class Period.”1 Dkt. No. 56 at 1, Ex. A. Plaintiffs propose a “Belaire- 22 West opt-out process”2 pursuant to which a third-party administrator would send written notice to 23 1 The parties did not provide the Court with information defining “California Class Members” or 24 “California Class Period” for purposes of Interrogatory No. 1. However, the Court has reviewed the operative complaint, and notes that it defines the “California Class” as “[a]ll of Defendants’ 25 current and former Interpreters and those with similar job duties, but different titles, who worked for Defendants within California during the California Class Period.” Dkt. No. 40 ¶ 81. The 26 operative complaint defines the “California Class Period” as “the four years preceding the filing of the initial complaint to the present.” Id. ¶ 32. 27 1 all putative California class members, advising of the proposed disclosure of their contact and 2 employment-related information to plaintiffs’ counsel and giving them an opportunity to opt-out 3 of that disclosure. See id. at 2-3, Ex. B. Although defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 1 on 4 several grounds, for purposes of this discovery dispute they argue only that “a threshold legal 5 issue,” which defendants say they intend to brief at the same time they oppose plaintiffs’ motion 6 for conditional certification, “must be decided before any putative class member information is 7 disclosed.” Id. at 5. 8 Having considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable law, the Court concludes that 9 the information plaintiffs seek in Interrogatory No. 1 is relevant and proportional to the needs of 10 the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The opt-out procedure plaintiffs propose appears well- 11 suited to protect the privacy interests of defendants’ current and former employees who are within 12 the scope of the “California Class” during the “California Class Period.” The Court has 13 considered defendants’ objection, but that objection confuses notice for purposes of discovery (i.e., 14 notice to putative class members of the proposed disclosure of their contact and employment- 15 related information to plaintiffs’ counsel) with notice for other purposes once a class is certified or 16 the Court issues an order on the merits. The parties’ discovery dispute does not implicate any 17 legal issues of first impression, as defendants contend. To the contrary, discovery of information 18 identifying putative class members is common in this district. See, e.g., Barreras v. Michaels 19 Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-4474-PJH (LB), 2015 WL 1886337, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015) 20 (collecting cases); Phan v. Transamerica Premier Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03665-BLF (VKD), 21 2022 WL 13800962, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022). Defendants do not dispute that the 22 allegations of the operative complaint establish a prima facie showing that the class action 23 requirements of Rule 23 are met as to the California Class, and having reviewed the operative 24 complaint, the Court so finds. Defendants may have viable arguments with respect to the merits 25 of plaintiffs’ claims concerning the California Class, but that is no reason to delay discovery of the 26 contact and employment-related information that will permit both parties to identify the putative 27 members of such class and to brief the issue of class certification. 1 Belaire-West opt-out process, such as plaintiffs have proposed, and to thereafter respond to 2 || Interrogatory No. 1. The Court expects that defendants will identify the current and former 3 employees within the scope of Interrogatory No. 1 within 30 days of the date of this order and that 4 || the third-party administrator will send out the proposed notices shortly thereafter. If the parties 5 || require an order setting specific deadlines for defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for 6 || the interim steps that must be completed before such a response is provided, they shall submit 7 their agreed or respective proposals to the Court for consideration. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: December 22, 2023 10 1 Onroiuia®, Au Marche: Virginia K. DeMarchi 12 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28