Hernandez v. Dutton Ranch Corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 OMAR HERNANDEZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-00817-EMC (LB) 12 Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY ORDER 13 v. Re: ECF No. 66 14 DUTTON RANCH CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The two named plaintiffs, who are migrant farmworkers who harvested grapes and apples for 18 Dutton Ranch, sued Dutton individually and in a representative capacity for, among other claims, 19 wage-and-hour violations, including a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act 20 (“PAGA”).1 They dispute Dutton’s refusal to produce the PAGA group’s contact information and 21 pay records: (1) the plaintiffs ask for production pursuant to a protective order, and (2) Dutton 22 wants the court to send a Belaire notice (informing them of the lawsuit and providing an 23 opportunity to opt out of having the plaintiffs’ counsel contact them).2 See Austin v. Foodliner, 24 Inc., No. 16-cv-07185-HSG (DMR), 2018 WL 1168694, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018) (citing 25 26 1 Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) – ECF No. 51 at 15–41 (¶¶ 74–245). Citations refer to material in the 27 Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 1 Belaire-W. Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 557-58 (2007)). The court 2 can decide the issue without oral argument, Civ. L. R. 7-1(b), and orders production under a 3 protective order. 4 Courts in this district routinely allow discovery of the contact information sought by the 5 || plaintiffs without requiring a Belaire notice. See, e.g., id. at *2 (in a wage-and-hour and PAGA 6 || claim, “[t]he predominant practice among courts in the Northern District of California is to allow 7 || pre-certification discovery of putative members’ confidential contact information subject to a 8 || protective order, without requiring a Belaire-West notice’) (collecting cases) (cleaned up); Bell v. 9 || Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. C 13-01199 YGR (LB), 2014 WL 985829, at *3—4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 10 || 2014) (collecting cases). The court orders production of the contact information by Dutton Ranch 11 pursuant to the parties’ protective order. 12 The next issue is whether Dutton Ranch must produce employee pay records and information 5 13 about management staff. It must do so. The plaintiffs’ requests are relevant to their wage-and-hour 14 || claims.? Cf Bell, 2014 WL 985829 at *2, 4 (ordering production of information relating to the 15 following: (1) “payroll, shift assignment, work hour, clock-in/-out records, and wage statements 16 for class members’” and (2) “[a]ll policies, procedures, and guidelines applicable to putative class 5 17 members’). 3 18 That said, the plaintiffs’ counsel must inform the employees that they need not talk to counsel 19 and, if they elect not to talk to counsel, the plaintiffs’ counsel will terminate the contact and not 20 || contact them again. Austin, 2018 WL 1168694 at *3 (ordering the same). 21 The plaintiffs ask for production in seven days. If that is not a reasonable time period for 22 || Dutton, then within seven days, the parties must confer and propose a schedule to the court. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. LAE 25 Dated: August 21, 2020 LAUREL BEELER 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 3 Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests, Ex. A to Discovery Letter — ECF No. 66-1 at 2-15.