Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04867-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

*E-filed 5/9/07*

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 DAVID HO, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,

Defendant. /

Case No. C05-04867 JF (HRL) 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S

SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND INFORMATION

Re: Docket No. 43

In this putative class action, plaintiff employee contends that defendant employer

improperly treated him and other employees as "professionals" exempt from California's

overtime laws. No class has yet been certified. Plaintiff moves to compel defendant to produce

visa applications for putative class members. 

After this motion was filed, the parties came to an agreement concerning the majority of

this motion. Defendant has agreed to produce the visa applications, with some especially

sensitive personal information redacted. Most of the motion is therefore moot. The only issue

for the court to decide is whether employee names and addresses should be redacted. 

Plaintiff wishes to be able to see the names and addresses so that he can contact putative

class members to discuss their job duties. Defendant argues that disclosure of the names and

addresses, in conjunction with sensitive immigration information and other personal history,

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 60 Filed 05/09/07 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

would violate the individuals' privacy rights. In an order filed contemporaneously with this one,

the court is granting plaintiff access (subject to an employee opt-out) to the entire putative class. 

Therefore, the court sees no compelling need for plaintiff to acquire employee names and

addresses from the visa applications. The employees' privacy interests outweigh the plaintiff's

need for this seemingly redundant information. With respect to names and addresses, plaintiff's

motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/9/07 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 60 Filed 05/09/07 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Catherine A. Conway cconway@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com 

Leon Greenberg wagelaw@aol.com 

Gregory William Knopp gknopp@akingump.com, dkucko@akingump.com 

Seth Adam Spiewak aspiewak@akingump.com, thowe@akingump.com 

Mark R. Thierman laborlawyer@pacbell.net, kellyann@callatg.com; thier3@callatg.com;

thier4@callatg.com; thier6@callatg.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up

for e-filing.

Dated: 5/9/07 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 4:05-cv-04867-JSW Document 60 Filed 05/09/07 Page 3 of 3