Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01117/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01117-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

STEVEN MCARDLE, an individual, on

behalf of himself, the general public and those

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC; NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS PCS LLC; NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., and Does 1-50

_____________________________________/ Defendants.

No. C 09-1117 CW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(DKT. NO. 218)

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the joint discovery dispute letter (“Joint Letter”) filed by Plaintiff, Steven

McArdle (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants, AT&T Mobility LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, and

New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) on February 25, 2013. Dkt. No.

218. After consideration of the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing,

the Court ORDERS as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 14, 2009, the Honorable Claudia Wilken, the presiding judge in this matter,

denied Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 74. Plaintiff

subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants appealed Judge Wilken’s Order. 

Dkt. No. 78. On August 31, 2012, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC

v. Concepcion, -- U.S. --, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision,

remanding for this Court to consider “McArdle’s arguments based on generally applicable contract

defenses.” Dk. No. 204 at 2.

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 219 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Thereafter, Judge Wilken granted Plaintiff leave “to conduct limited discovery regarding

matters relevant to generally applicable contract defenses” in anticipation of a renewed arbitration

motion by Defendants. Order, Dkt. No. 211, at 2. Plaintiff served Defendants with 34 requests for

production of documents (“RFP”) and two interrogatories, containing eight subparts, seeking broad

discovery into Defendants’ arbitration program from 2002 to the present. Defendants objected to the

discovery on the grounds that it exceeded the limited scope contemplated by Judge Wilken’s order. 

Jt. Ltr., Dkt. 218, at 3. 

Pursuant to the Court’s Discovery Order, the parties submitted their dispute to Magistrate

Judge James. Order, Dkt. No. 212. On December 21, 2012, in accordance with Meyer v. T-Mobile

USA Inc., 836 F.Supp.2d 994 1006-07 (N.D.Cal. 2011), this Court ruled that Defendants “need not

respond to Plaintiff’s requests that relate to other agreements, disputes, arbitrations, and lawsuits

relating to other customers.” Order, Dkt. No 215 at 1. The Court instructed the parties to meet and

confer about the scope of discovery in light of its ruling and the prior order permitting only “limited

discovery.” Jt. Ltr., Dkt. 218 at 1. 

In response, Plaintiff limited the requests to seek information only from the wireless

provider, AT&T Mobility, LLC (“ATTM”). Plaintiff also “narrowed” his discovery requests to

demand every arbitration and pre-arbitration notice of dispute involving an ATTM customer since

2002, along with all filings by ATTM in any such arbitration and any petition by ATTM to confirm

or vacate an arbitral award. Jt. Ltr., Dkt. 218 at 2; RFP Nos. 42-44, 46; Interrog. 1. Plaintiff

additionally demanded a broad class of documents relating to “any weakness” or the “fairness” or

“unfairness” of the “arbitral process” of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) and the

AAA’s unrelated moratorium on debt-collection arbitrations by businesses against consumers. Id.;

RFP Nos. 63-65. 

Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling Defendants to provide the above discovery on the

issue of whether the arbitration clause in Plaintiff’s wireless service contract is unconscionable

under California law. Plaintiff asserts that this information is relevant to his claim that his own

arbitration agreement is “substantively unconscionable and illusory.” Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 218, at 1. 

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 219 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff asserts that these requests comply with the December 20, 2012 Discovery Order because

the requests do not seek documents about individual customers’ arbitration proceedings. Id. at 1, fn.

1.

DISCUSSION

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) calls for “an expeditious summary hearing on [motions

to compel arbitration], with only restricted inquiry into factual issues.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp.

v. Mercury Constr. Corp. 460 U.S. 1, 22-23 (1983). However, limited pre-arbitration discovery may

be permitted into “issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate”

where “‘the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the

same be in issue.’” Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 9 U.S.C.

§ 4). Accordingly, “District courts in the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit itself have allowed a

party opposing a motion to compel arbitration to conduct discovery relevant to the issue of

unconscionability. Meyer, 836 F.Supp.2d at 1006-07. 

Discovery that does not relate to the validity of the plaintiff’s own arbitration agreement is

irrelevant to the unconscionability inquiry, because it does not assist the court in determining

whether the agreement at issue is unconscionable. Hodson v. DirectTV, LLC, 2012 WL 5464615, at

*8 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (denying arbitration-related discovery focusing on other customers because the

only relevant document is the actual arbitration agreement alleged to be unconscionable); Meyer,

836 F.Supp.2d at 1007 (disallowing discovery where the requests focused not on the plaintiff’s

arbitration agreement, but instead focused on all agreements, disputes, arbitrations and lawsuits

relating to T–Mobile customers).

Here, Plaintiff seeks pre-arbitration discovery requesting “every arbitration and prearbitration notice of dispute involving an ATTM customer since 2002, along with filings by ATTM

in any such arbitration and any petition by ATTM to confirm or vacate an arbitral award.” RFP

Nos. 42-44, 46, and Interrog. No. 1. These requests are not proper because they pertain to

agreements, disputes, arbitrations and lawsuits relating to ATTM customers other than Plaintiff. 

Meyer, 836 F.Supp.2d at 1007. This Court has already disallowed discovery requests focused on

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 219 Filed 03/21/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

other ATTM customers. Order, Dkt. 215. Even if Plaintiff did not disregard the Court’s December

20, 2012 Order limiting discovery to Plaintiff’s own agreement, these discovery requests would not

provide any new information necessary for the Court to determine the issue of unconscionability

because the only relevant document is the actual arbitration agreement alleged to be unconscionable. 

Hodson 2012 WL 5464615, at *8.

Plaintiff is also not entitled to the discovery requested in RFP Nos. 63-65, which seeks

documents relating to “weakness” or the “fairness” or “unfairness” of the “arbitral process” of the

AAA and the AAA’s moratorium on debt-collection arbitrations by businesses against consumers

and to and “weakness” or the “fairness” or “unfairness” of the AAA’s arbitration process. RFP 64-

65. These requests are impermissibly vague to the extent they require ATTM to interpret the

meaning of the words “weakness” or “fairness” or “unfairness” as they relate to any of AAA's

procedures or administration in the past decade. Moreover, the requests are based solely on

suspicion of bias in the arbitration process. In order to gain such discovery, the party opposing

arbitration must “show[]” that the “arbitration rules” themselves are “inadequate to guard against

potential bias.” Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. 500 U.S. 20, 30 (1991). This Plaintiff has

not done.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to RFP

Nos. 42-44, 46, 63-65, and Interrogatory No. 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2013 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 219 Filed 03/21/13 Page 4 of 4