Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01016/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01016-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CENTURIONI, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 07-1016 PJH

v. ORDER

CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court for expedited resolution is defendant’s objection to plaintiffs’

counsel’s use of a list it provided, of the names and addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs

to the collective action, for any purpose other than the sending of the court-approved notice

of action. Plaintiffs’ counsel having conceded that court approval of the notice of action did

not extend to notice of informational meetings, and having mailed the notices of action

without the notice of informational meetings, now seek to use the list to facilitate the mailing

of a separate notice of informational meetings to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The court has

reviewed the letter briefs filed by the parties and rules as follows.

This matter was reassigned to the undersigned after the notice of action had been

approved by Judge White. Judge White did not approve the inclusion of the notice of

informational meetings in the notice of action itself; rather it does not appear that the issue

was brought to his attention. Because the approved notice of action has already been

mailed, the question for this court is whether plaintiffs’ counsel should be able to use the list

again for other than the purpose for which the list was ordered produced. 

Defendant is correct that the parties agreed during negotiations that the notice of

action would not contain the notice of informational meetings. And it does appear that

Case 4:07-cv-01016-PJH Document 72 Filed 03/13/08 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

using the same list for a separate mailing presents plaintiffs’ counsel with a way to

circumvent that agreement. Nonetheless, the court is not persuaded that the prior

agreement should alone prevent plaintiffs’ counsel from seeking another way to make

legitimate contact with potential opt-in plaintiffs. 

Defendant also raises the confidentiality of peace officer home addresses provided

by California Penal Code § 832.7 and the need to protect the privacy of those individuals

who may choose not to join as plaintiffs, from “repeated and uninvited intrusion” by

plaintiffs’ counsel. This is a stronger argument. Although section 832.7 is intended

primarily to protect the privacy of officers who are the subject of citizen complaints and

other allegations of wrongdoing, it does reflect the general policy that individuals do not

forfeit their right to privacy of personal information by virtue of their public employment. 

The court finds, however, that the use of the list for mailing a notice of the schedule for

meetings designed to provide information about a lawsuit about which the recipients have

just been notified, presents only a de minimis intrusion by plaintiffs’ counsel, the same

senders of the last mailing, particularly if the notice advises that contact information was

provided pursuant to court order and will be treated as confidential and used for no purpose

other than communication regarding the law suit. 

The court agrees with defendant, however, that use of this confidential information in

a way that resulted in repeated and uninvited intrusions by plaintiffs’ counsel upon the

privacy of individuals who choose not to opt in, could certainly violate the spirit, if not the

letter, of section 832.7. The notice of action advises the potential opt-in plaintiffs of the

existence of the lawsuit, the nature of the claims, how to participate, the effect of

participating and of not participating; invites potential plaintiffs to contact plaintiffs’ counsel

for additional information; and provides the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers,

and email addresses of each of plaintiffs’ counsel. The notice of informational meetings

further advises of the dates, times and locations of five information meetings to be

conducted regarding the lawsuit. This is certainly enough information to inform a decision

Case 4:07-cv-01016-PJH Document 72 Filed 03/13/08 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

on whether a recipient should opt in or seek additional guidance. Because this is a

collective action requiring plaintiffs to opt in rather than a class action requiring uninterested

plaintiffs to opt out, continued mailings to non-responding recipients would amount to

repeated and uninvited intrusions. 

Accordingly, this order permits plaintiffs’ counsel to use the list provided by

defendant for the single purpose of notifying the potential plaintiffs of the informational

meetings scheduled for March and April 2008. Thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel will be

required to rely on the contact information provided by the plaintiffs who submit the opt-in

consent forms which require that they provide their names and addresses. Communication

with potential plaintiffs by counsel for both sides is permitted absent abuse which must be

clearly identified and supported by the opposing side.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01016-PJH Document 72 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 3