Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

CLAUDIA MORENO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-4432 MJJ (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO TAKE PRECERTIFICATION DEPOSITIONS

(Docket Nos. 159, 160)

The parties’ dispute over Defendant’s request to take the deposition of absent class members

Bert Knox and James McDaniel who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification briefed by letter came on for hearing on August 1, 2007. Good cause appearing

therefor, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request.

Discovery of absent class members is generally not allowed. However, such discovery may

be taken even prior to certification if the proponent of the deposition demonstrates discovery is not

sought to take undue advantage of class members or to harass class members, and is necessary to the

trial preparation (or in this instance for preparation of the opposition to class certification). See In re

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16205 (N.D. Ind. 2007) at *19-20;

Cornn v. UPS, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69196 (N. D. Ca. 2006) at * 6-7.

Those criteria are met here. Defendant seeks to take the deposition only of those absent class

members who have injected themselves into the class certification motion by filing factual

declarations. Nothing indicates this is an attempt to take undue advantage of or to harass absent

class members. Reasonable cross examination of the declarants as to facts asserted therein is

reasonably necessary to Defendant’s preparation of its opposition to the class certification motion. 

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 162 Filed 08/03/07 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

While Defendant may have access to relevant documents which could support its opposition to the

class certification motion, the declarants appear to possess information which may not be

documented and thus not within Defendant’s possession absent a deposition. Moreover, Defendant

has agreed that it only needs two hours each to take these witness’ deposition, so the burden on the

witnesses is minimal. 

Should Defendant’s wish to take the deposition of the three other absent class members who

submitted declaration, it may do so (provided they can be located soon) with the same limitation that

each deposition shall be limited to two hours.

At the hearing, the parties raised the issue of Defendant’s desire to take the deposition of

expert witnesses who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. 

Because such depositions are reasonably necessary to defend against the motion, and these

declarations were not provided to Defendant until July, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to take

these two expert witness depositions in order to examine the declarants on matters raised in their

declarations. While Defendant is entitled to examine documents on which these experts relied in

rendering their opinions, it is not entitled to view all correspondence which would otherwise be

privileged if such correspondence was not relied on substantively in rendering their opinions.

The parties shall meet and confer and work out a schedule for the depositions. The Court

expects these depositions will be completed by mid-September. The parties stipulated that the

hearing on the motion for class certification will be heard no sooner than 30 days after the last

deposition. Any rescheduling of the hearing on the class certification motion (currently scheduled

for October 17) shall be subject to approval by Judge Jenkins.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 159 and 160.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 162 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2