Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00490/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00490-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAMILTON, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORP., et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

No. C 05-0490 CW (MEJ)

ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR NATIONWIDE

DISCOVERY

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed on December 5, 2005. In

the letter, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to provide nationwide information regarding

Signature Flight Support Corporation's ("Signature") employment practices for all job positions at

Signature, as well as complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation on a nationwide/companywide scale. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to nationwide information because they properly allege that

the discriminatory treatment they experienced stemmed from Signature's "pattern and practice" of

discriminating against African-Americans and females and retaliating against those employees who complain

of discrimination. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to conduct nationwide discovery to support their

class allegations. Plaintiffs further argue that they are entitled to nationwide information in order to establish

pretext because Signature has asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment actions at

issue in this case.

In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs seek discovery that is much broader than what is

permitted in pre-certified class actions. Defendants contend that pre-certification discovery is limited; thus,

Plaintiffs can discover the elements required for a class action, but Defendants must be protected from

discovery that is over burdensome. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged a companyCase 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 77 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 2
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

wide policy because their claim that Signature has a pattern and practice of discrimination is based up each

manager's individualized employment decisions.

A district court should allow discovery to aid the determination of whether a class action is

maintainable. Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). However, the plaintiff bears

the burden of advancing a prima facie showing that the class action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Id.

Absent such a showing, a trial court's refusal to allow class discovery is not an abuse of discretion. Id.

(citing Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir.1977)).

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that the requested discovery is

likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Nationwide information regarding Signature's

employment practices, as well as complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, are likely to

"produce persuasive information substantiating the class action allegations." Doninger, 564 F.2d at 1313. 

"The propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without discovery, as for example,

where discovery is necessary to determine the existence of a class or set of subclasses." Id. "To deny

discovery in a case of that nature would be an abuse of discretion." Id. This is such a case and Plaintiffs

are entitled to discover whether a class exists. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to

respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests related to Signature's employment practices, as well as complaints

of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, on a nationwide/company-wide level. Defendants shall

respond within 45 days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00490-CW Document 77 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2