Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02159/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02159-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND 

HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 

LITIGATION,

Case No. 10-md-02159-CRB (JSC)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 258

This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for the purposes of 

discovery. (Dkt. No. 42.)1 Presently before the Court is a joint discovery letter concerning 

Defendant’s request for an order compelling Plaintiffs to disclose the identities of the class 

members who responded to a telephone survey that Plaintiffs’ expert conducted. (Dkt. No. 258.)

The question is whether Plaintiffs’ expert can rely on class members’ factual statements about 

missed rest breaks to prepare a report regarding Defendant’s liability and the class-wide damages 

for missed rest breaks, while at the same time withholding from Defendant the identities of the 

class members making those statements. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, and having 

had the benefit of oral argument on May 12, 2016, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs cannot as the 

survey respondents were not promised confidentiality.

BACKGROUND

The district court certified a class on Plaintiffs’ rest break claims. (Dkt. No. 174.) On 

April 8, 2016, Plaintiffs produced an expert report from C. Paul Wazzan, Ph.D., of the Berkeley 

Research Group, LLC, who conducted a survey of a sample of the 21,000-plus class members 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated numbers at the top of the documents. ECF docket numbers throughout refer to the 

consolidated MDL docket, unless a case number for a particular case is provided.

Case 3:10-md-02159-CRB Document 270 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

regarding the implementation of Defendant’s rest break policies and procedures. In particular, Dr. 

Wazzan determined that a telephone survey was “the best method to estimate the frequency with 

which rest breaks were taken,” and thus determine class-wide damages. (Dkt. No. 262 at 8.) 

According to Plaintiffs, the class member survey respondents were advised that “their identities 

would be protected.” (Dkt. No. 258 at 12.) Plaintiffs produced the databases that Dr. Wazzan 

used to prepare his report, but refused to produce the survey respondents’ identities on the grounds 

that such disclosure is prohibited because “confidentiality of survey respondents’ identities is an 

accepted best practice among survey administrators and protects the integrity of the survey[,]” and 

Defendant can impeach the survey’s reliability by attacking Dr. Wazzan’s methodology, not 

through cross-examination of the respondents themselves. (Dkt. No. 258 at 8.)

DISCUSSION

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require an expert witness to disclose “the facts or 

data considered . . . in forming [the expert’s opinions].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The Rules 

also provide that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter” where the 

discovery is relevant and proportional. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A party may seek a protective 

order to prevent disclosure of, among other things, trade secrets or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The party resisting

discovery must establish that the information sought is kept confidential and demonstrate that its 

disclosure might be harmful. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that the class members were promised 

confidentiality. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ assertion in the joint discovery letter brief, Dr. 

Wazzan’s report makes no mention of any confidentiality promises to the class member survey 

respondents. For example, in his discussion regarding the survey design and administration he 

never states that respondents were advised that their identities would remain confidential. (Dkt. 

No. 258 ¶¶ 18 -20.) 

Even more dispositive, in his report Dr. Wazzan represents that a “full and correct copy of 

the survey read to participants is attached as Supplemental Exhibit C,” and that “the details behind 

Case 3:10-md-02159-CRB Document 270 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

the administration of the survey” are in Supplemental Appendix D. (Id. at ¶ 20.) The “full and 

correct copy” of the survey read to participants does not mention a word about confidentiality; 

instead, the respondent class members are told that the “information [they] provide will be used in 

connection with this lawsuit.” (Id. at 60.) The “details behind the administration of the survey” 

also do not mention anything about respondents being advised that their responses will be 

anonymous. (Id. at 67-69.) Thus, unless the expert report is wrong, the class member survey 

respondents were not advised that their responses would be confidential.

Plaintiffs’ objection to identifying the survey respondents is premised on their erroneous 

assertion that the respondents were promised confidentiality. Plaintiffs’ argue: “If AutoZone is 

allowed to cross-examine the survey respondents—who thought that their responses would be kept 

confidential—the entire survey process will be compromised.” (Dkt. No. 258 at 9.) Plaintiffs also 

cite the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual of Scientific Evidence (3d ed. 2011) for the 

proposition that the “purpose of confidentiality is to increase participation rates and encourage 

candid responses—thus enhancing the survey’s accuracy.” (Id.) It goes without saying that if the 

survey taker does not advise the class member that the responses will be kept confidential such 

“secret” confidentiality will not impact response rates nor accuracy. Plaintiffs’ objection to 

identifying the class member survey respondents is thus OVERRULED.

The Court is dismayed, however, that this critical fact—that the expert report did not 

support Plaintiffs’ assertion that the class member survey respondents were promised 

confidentiality—was not raised by Defendant until oral argument. If the parties had engaged in a 

competent meet and confer process the issue would have been spotted before ever being brought 

to the Court’s attention. It is evident that neither side even bothered to carefully read the expert 

report before filing the joint discovery letter brief; indeed, they did not even attach it to the joint 

letter brief. The Court expects that in the future the parties will take more seriously their 

obligation to thoroughly understand each side’s position before filing a discovery dispute.

Finally, there is the issue of what Defendant will do with the identities of the survey 

respondents. Defendant is directed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs to devise a process that is as 

inconvenient to the class member respondents as possible. They did not submit declarations; 

Case 3:10-md-02159-CRB Document 270 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

instead, they merely answered a telephone survey. Perhaps Defendant can likewise conduct brief 

telephone depositions of a sample of the respondents. If the parties are unable to agree to a 

process after they have exhausted good faith meet and confer efforts (which must at a minimum 

include telephone communications—email alone is never sufficient), then they should contact the 

Court’s Courtroom Deputy to set a status call with the Court.

This Order disposes of Docket Number 258.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-md-02159-CRB Document 270 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 4