Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432-17/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 1

 Plaintiff is not asking for the unsealing of any documents subject to the protective order.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDIA MORENO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-4432 CRB (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF

APRIL 7, 2008

(Docket No. 247)

The parties have filed a joint letter, dated April 7, 2008, concerning a discovery dispute. As

discussed in the letter, Plaintiff seeks to modify the protective order entered in the instant case so

that confidential documents subject to the protective order may be used not only in the instant case

but also in two other cases, Ellison v. AutoZone, Inc., No. C-06-7522 CRB (N.D. Cal.), and Myart v.

AutoZone, Inc., No. 05CC03219 (Orange County Superior Ct.).1

 Having reviewed the parties’ joint

letter and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

Denial is appropriate for several reasons. First, as Defendant points out, the real parties in

interest with respect to the motion to modify are the plaintiffs in the Ellison and Myart suits, but they

have not made any appearance in the instant case seeking to intervene for the limited purpose of

modifying the protective order. See Beckman Indus. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 473

(9th Cir. 1992) (“recognizing that Rule 24(b) [which governs permissive intervention] permits

limited intervention for the purpose of challenging a protective order”). The fact that counsel for

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 248 Filed 04/10/08 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

 The Court notes that, even if Plaintiffs could establish relevance and there is no countervailing

reliance interest on the part of Defendant, such that modification of the protective order in this case

would be appropriate, the Court would only be deciding that the protective order in this case will not

bar the Ellison and Myart plaintiffs “from gaining access to the discovery already conducted.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. It would not be “decid[ing] whether the collateral litigants will ultimately obtain the

discovery materials.” Id. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Foltz, “[t]he disputes over the ultimate

discoverability of specific materials covered by the protective order must be resolved by the collateral

courts.” Id.

The Court further notes that, arguably, the plaintiff in Ellison should not be entitled to

modification of the protective order (at least, not yet) since, in that case, discovery was stayed pending

resolution of the class certification motion in this case. See Ellison, C-06-7522 CRB (Docket No. 60).

2

Plaintiff happens to represent the plaintiffs in Ellison and Myart does not mean that Plaintiff can

therefore seek relief on behalf of the Ellison and Myart plaintiffs.

Second, even if Plaintiff could seek relief on their behalf, the Court must still apply the

standard laid out by the Ninth Circuit in Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 331

F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). In Foltz, the Ninth Circuit noted that it “strongly favors access to

discovery materials to meet the needs of parties engaged in collateral litigation [because] [a]llowing

the fruits of one litigation to facilitate preparation in other cases advances the interests of judicial

economy by avoiding the wasteful duplication of discovery.” Id. at 1131. Accordingly, “[w]here

reasonable restrictions on collateral disclosure will continue to protect an affected party’s legitimate

interests in privacy, a collateral litigant’s request to the issuing court to modify an otherwise proper

protective order so that collateral litigants are not precluded from obtaining relevant material should

generally be granted.” Id. at 1132. The Ninth Circuit, however, cautioned that “a court should not

grant a collateral litigant’s request for such modification automatically. As an initial matter, the

collateral litigant must demonstrate the relevance of the protected discovery to the collateral

proceedings and its general discoverability therein.” Id. at 1131-32. In the instant case, Plaintiff

(assuming that she may properly act on behalf of the Ellison and Myart plaintiffs) has failed to

establish the relevance of the protected discovery to the Ellison and Myart cases. In the joint letter,

Plaintiff simply states in conclusory terms that the Ellison and Myart cases allege “similar labor

code violations” as in the instant case. Joint Letter at 1 n.1. No other analysis is provided.2

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for modification of the protective order. 

This order shall not bar either the Ellison plaintiff or Myart plaintiff from seeking relief by means of

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 248 Filed 04/10/08 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

proper intervention. However, any such motion to intervene should not be made until after Judge

Breyer has ruled on Defendant’s challenge to the adequacy of current counsel for Plaintiff (which

also represents the Ellison and Myart plaintiffs). This will not prejudice the plaintiff in Ellison since

discovery in that case has been stayed pending resolution of the class certification motion in this

case. Nor will this prejudice the Myart plaintiff since he has known about the documents in the

instant case since at least October 2007 but chose not to pursue the production of documents until

some six months later.

This order disposes of Docket No. 247.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 248 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3