Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04117/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04117-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEAH BULLEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-04117 SBA (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

In this proposed class action, Plaintiff Leah Bullen, who was employed as a bank-based

Financial Advisor, alleges that Defendant Citigroup Global Markets discriminated against her based

on her gender. On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff served Interrogatory 1, which states:

For every individual employed by Defendant Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., d/b/a/

Smith Barney as a bank-based Financial Advisor in the State of California at any time

since September 3, 2007, provide the following information:

a. the individual’s full name;

b. the individual’s last known address;

c. the individual’s last known telephone numbers;

d. the individual’s starting and ending dates of employment; and 

e. the individual’s work site or sites by branch number, location and city.

Declaration of Sang Park Ex. A. The parties agree that there are 77 female bank-based Financial

Advisors in California that are at issue in Interrogatory 1. Defendant has responded to this

Interrogatory with objections based on the right to privacy, attorney-client privilege and work

product, overbreadth and undue burden, and has provided no substantive response. Plaintiff argues

that she is entitled to this information in advance of briefing the class certification issues, and

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to this information until she can make a prima facie

showing that a class action is maintainable. For the reasons stated at the hearing and in this Order,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted in part.

Case 4:09-cv-04117-SBA Document 32 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

“Whether or not discovery will be permitted in a case of this nature [prior to class

certification] lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Kamm v. California City Dev. Co.,

509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). There is a split of authority as to whether pre-certification

discovery of identifying information for potential class members is permissible. Compare HoffmanLaRoche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989) (stating that the district court was correct in

permitting discovery of the names and addresses of potential class members: “Without pausing to

explore alternative bases for the discovery, for instance that the employees might have knowledge of

other discoverable matter, we find it suffices to say that the discovery was relevant to the subject

matter of the action and that there were no grounds to limit the discovery under the facts and

circumstances of this case.”), and Babbitt v. Albertson's. Inc., 1992 WL 605652, *5-6 (N.D. Cal.

Nov. 30, 1992) (court ordered production at pre-certification stage of identifying information for

current and past employees, stating that “[d]efendant has access to this information, and plaintiff

should have the same access. Furthermore, the information could lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence relevant to the class certification issue.”), with Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416 (9th

Cir. 1985) (“Although in some cases a district court should allow discovery to aid the determination

of whether a class action is maintainable, the plaintiff bears the burden of advancing a prima facie

showing that the class action requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely

to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Absent such a showing, a trial court's refusal to

allow class discovery is not an abuse of discretion.”). The weight of authority, however, is to allow

pre-certification discovery of contact information for class members. 

At the hearing, Defendant’s counsel explained the general structure in California of

Citigroup Global Markets. He explained that Plaintiff worked in the East Bay area, which is part of

a larger region, and that there are at least two regions in California. Based on that explanation, and

because Plaintiff has not made a showing at this point that there is any overarching policy or practice

or common decision-maker(s) regarding female bank-based Financial Advisors in California that

would justify state-wide discovery, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Discovery

is limited to identifying information for female bank-based Financial Advisors in the Northern

California region that encompasses the East Bay area in which Plaintiff worked. Further, Defendant

Case 4:09-cv-04117-SBA Document 32 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

shall provide Plaintiff with objective information, such as an organizational chart, sufficient to show

Defendant’s structure in California as explained at the hearing. As stated at the hearing, the

identifying information shall be kept confidential and shall not be used for any purpose other than

this case. The parties shall meet and confer to agree on a formal protective order to govern

confidential information in this case. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff obtaining the same

contact information for other California female bank-based Financial Advisors if the information for

her region supports or other discovery provides a basis for doing so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04117-SBA Document 32 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3