Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432-10/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

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

(Docket No. 164)

In its order of August 3, 2007, the Court made a ruling with respect to the depositions of

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

More specifically, the Court stated that, for these witnesses, “Defendant is entitled to examine

documents on which these experts relied in rendering their opinions, [but] is not entitled to view all

correspondence which would otherwise be privileged if such correspondence was not relied on

substantively in rendering their opinions.” Order of 8/3/07, at 2. Defendant asks the Court to vacate

this part of the order because the issue was not raised in the parties’ letters and further because the

ruling is inconsistent with precedent. Having considered the parties’ respective letters, the Court

hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to reconsider.

The Court agrees with Defendant that this issue regarding the scope of privilege in regard to

expert witnesses is premature. The issue was not raised in either party’s letter and instead was

brought up for the first time during the conference call with the Court. While the Court’s ruling that

expert witnesses submitting declarations may be deposed is consistent with its ruling that other

declarants may be subject to examination, the privilege issue presents a closer question which

warrants briefing. The Court notes that, in their letters addressing the request for reconsideration,

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 166 Filed 08/08/07 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

neither party has directly addressed the critical question on this issue. That is, even if “Rule

26(a)(2)(B) requires the disclosure of all materials considered by, presented to, or relied upon by a

testifying expert in forming his or her opinions, regardless of whether they might otherwise be

protected by the work-product privilege,” SEC v. Reyes, No. C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 27767, at *4 n.1 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2007), the question remains whether the same

disclosures are required with respect to an expert who has supplied a declaration (or testimony)

outside of the context of Rule 26(a)(2) -- in this case in support of a motion for class certification. 

The Court’s comments on disclosed communications with the expert declarants were premature.

 Accordingly, the Court vacates that part of its prior ruling that addressed disclosures to

expert witnesses who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiff’s motion for certification. The

parties should further meet and confer to determine whether they can reach agreement on this issue. 

If not, the parties should file by August 22, 2007 a joint letter (no longer than four single-spaced

pages) addressing the issue.

This order disposes of Docket No. 164.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 166 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2