Andersen v. Papa, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 CARICE ASHLEY ANDERSEN, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06326-RS (RMI) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 55 11 PAPA, INC., et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Now pending before the court is a jointly filed letter brief (dkt. 55) setting forth a 15 discovery dispute in this wage and hour case that is brought both as a putative class action, as well 16 as being filed under California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. (Private Attorneys General Act 17 “PAGA”) (see Third Amend. Compl. (dkt. 45). The matter came on to be heard at oral argument 18 on August 8, 2023. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ request to compel is granted in part 19 and denied in part. 20 Plaintiffs’ portion of the letter brief asks for certain contact information (California-based 21 Pals) (“Pals” are a category of Defendant’s employees) and certain policy documents. See Ltr. Br. 22 (dkt. 55) at 3. As to the policy documents, Defendant states that “Plaintiff has not identified – and 23 Defendant is not aware of – any specific responsive records that have not already been produced.” 24 See id. at 5 n.2. Plaintiffs’ portion of the letter brief does not suitably address Defendant’s 25 contention, nor did Plaintiffs raise the “policy documents” issue at oral argument. Accordingly, 26 Plaintiffs’ request to compel further production in this regard is DENIED. 27 As to the list of California-based Pals sought by Plaintiffs – the court will begin by noting 1 arguments presented in the joint letter brief. With regards to a class list – in support of Plaintiffs’ 2 effort towards class certification, (while the information was not included in the letter brief) the 3 Parties informed the court that Defendant has supplied such information for 250+ putative 4 California class members who did not opt-out (out of a larger tranche of 2000+ putative 5 nationwide class members whose information was also reportedly tendered). In this regard, it was 6 unclear what else Plaintiffs wanted and why they believed they were entitled to any further 7 production in advance of their class certification effort. In other words, this sampling appears to be 8 sufficient for Plaintiffs’ efforts towards class certification. 9 However, as to the PAGA claim, the court finds that Plaintiffs’ position at oral argument 10 (i.e., that the PAGA claim compels the production of a more fulsome PAGA class list at this time) 11 was more persuasive than Defendant’s positions, and that Plaintiffs should be provided with the 12 PAGA class list (that is, the contact information for all California-based Pals). See e.g., Williams 13 v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 548 (2017) (“Representative PAGA actions directly enforce the 14 state’s interest in penalizing and deterring employers who violate California’s labor laws. Hurdles 15 that impede the effective prosecution of representative PAGA actions undermine the Legislature’s 16 objectives. It follows that in PAGA cases, as in the class action context, state policy favors access 17 to contact information for fellow employees alleged to have been subjected to Labor Code 18 violations.”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court understands 19 and appreciates Defendant’s arguments to the effect that “the vast majority of Pals in California 20 have signed arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers.” See Ltr. Br. 21 (dkt 55) at 5). However, that is a question for another day and should not foreclose the discovery 22 that Plaintiffs seek today because, as Defendant appears to concede, not all California Pals have 23 signed such agreements. Second, the validity and applicability of those agreements may yet be 24 litigated to a conclusion at odds with Defendant’s asserted position – after all, a PAGA action 25 enforces the state’s interest, which may not be so easily subject to waiver. See e.g., Rodriguez v. 26 Twitter, Inc., 3:22-cv-07222-JD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74849, *9-10 (April 28, 2023) (“There is 27 also no dispute that the arbitration agreement would be invalid to the extent that it waived 1 ‘compelling the representative portion of [Rodriguez’s] PAGA claim to arbitration would be 2 || tantamount to waiver,’ the parties converge on the same conclusion: Rodriguez’s representative 3 PAGA claims cannot be compelled to arbitration.”) (quoting Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. 4 Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1916, 213 L. Ed. 2d 179 (2022)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to 5 || produce the contact information for all California-based Pals is GRANTED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 8, 2023 8 9 10 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28