Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07370/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAY DELGADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARKETSOURCE, INC., et al. 

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-07370-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE JULY 30, 2018 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 25

In this putative class action, plaintiff Ray Delgado sues defendant MarketSource, Inc. and 

unnamed Doe defendants for violating California labor laws. The case was originally filed in 

Santa Clara County Superior Court, but MarketSource subsequently removed the action to this 

Court asserting federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453. Dkt. No. 1. The

parties dispute whether Mr. Delgado may obtain discovery of the contact information of all 

putative class members in the state of California. The parties submitted a joint discovery letter 

describing their respective positions on July 30, 2018. Dkt. No. 25.

The Court grants Mr. Delgado’s request for discovery of contact information for putative 

class members, subject to the further conditions set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Delgado alleges that he worked for MarketSource as a district manager in Santa Clara 

County from approximately April 3, 2013 to April 18, 2017. Dkt. No. 1-1, Ex. 1 ¶ 7. He says that 

the wage statements issued to him by MarketSource failed to separately itemize all deductions in 

violation of California Labor Code § 226(a), and that MarketSource failed to pay all earned wages 

to him immediately upon termination of his employment in violation of California Labor Code 

Case 5:17-cv-07370-LHK Document 29 Filed 08/28/18 Page 1 of 6
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

§§ 201 and 203. Id. ¶ 22. Mr. Delgado alleges that MarketSource “uniformly administered a 

corporate policy and practice” of failing to accurately itemize employee wage statements and 

failing to pay all wages owed and due to employees immediately upon termination. Id. ¶ 19. Mr. 

Delgado seeks to pursue these claims on behalf of two classes:

a. All current and former employees who worked for Defendant in 

the State of California at any time from November 30, 2016, to the 

present (the “Wage Statement Class”).

b. All former employees of Defendant in the State of California 

whose employment was involuntarily terminated by Defendant at 

any time from November 30, 2014, to the present (the “Final Wages 

Class”).

Id. ¶ 16.

MarketSource generally denies Mr. Delgado’s allegations, and objects to the request for 

certification of a class or classes. Id., Ex. 5.

Mr. Delgado moves to compel MarketSource to disclose contact information for the 

current and former employees who are putative members of what he has defined as the Wage 

Statement Class and the Final Wages Class.1 He seeks this discovery to support his anticipated 

motion for class certification. MarketSource objects to the discovery on several grounds, 

including that Mr. Delgado has not made a prima facie showing that MarketSource has committed 

any violation of California labor laws, let alone a prima facie showing that his allegations meet the 

requirements for maintaining a class action. MarketSource separately objects to the scope of Mr. 

Delgado’s discovery to the extent he seeks contact information for employees who worked at 

locations other than the location where he worked, or contact information for employees who have 

entered into arbitration agreements with class action waivers.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A member of a class may sue on behalf of all class members only if “(1) the class is so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact 

 

1

The parties have attached the interrogatories at issue, which use the defined term “IDENTIFY”

with respect to the putative class members. However, the parties omit the portion of the 

interrogatories that includes the definition of that term. The record does not reflect what 

information the term “IDENTIFY” encompasses.

Case 5:17-cv-07370-LHK Document 29 Filed 08/28/18 Page 2 of 6
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

common to the class; (3) the claims or defense of the representative parties are typical of the 

claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect 

the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The parties dispute the standard that applies to 

discovery conducted before a class is certified. Mr. Delgado contends that he is automatically 

entitled to discover the contact information of all putative class members because the presiding 

judge has not bifurcated discovery as to class certification and liability. Dkt. No. 25 at 2, 3. 

MarketSource cites a discretionary standard for pre-certification discovery, but then argues that 

Mr. Delgado is not entitled to the discovery he seeks here because he has not made an evidentiary 

showing to support the allegations in his complaint on the merits or with respect to the 

requirements of Rule 23. Id. at 5–6.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the availability and scope of pre-certification discovery lie 

entirely within the discretion of the district court. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 

F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). In its exercise of that discretion, the court considers whether the 

plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the Rule 23 class action requirements are met, or 

whether the discovery sought is “likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” 

Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). Discovery of the identities of putative 

class members is neither “automatic,” nor is an evidentiary showing required.

With respect to the decision to certify a class, the Ninth Circuit has observed that “the 

better and more advisable practice for a District Court to follow is to afford the litigants an 

opportunity to present evidence as to whether a class action is maintainable.” Doninger v. Pac.

Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977). That directive implies that, in most cases, the 

plaintiff should be permitted to obtain the discovery necessary to make the required showing, 

particularly when the relevant information is in the sole possession of the defendant. Id.; see also 

Vinole, 571 F.3d at 942 (“Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that often the 

pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class certification and that some discovery will be 

warranted.”).

Case 5:17-cv-07370-LHK Document 29 Filed 08/28/18 Page 3 of 6
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

III. DISCUSSION

A. Contact Information for Putative Class Members

The Court finds that Mr. Delgado has made a prima facie showing that the class action 

requirements of Rule 23 are met, sufficient to permit pre-certification discovery of class member 

contact information. Here, Mr. Delgado alleges that (1) the putative classes (as defined by Mr. 

Delgado) are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; (2) there are questions of law 

or fact concerning MarketSource’s alleged policies and procedures regarding employee wage 

statements and payment of wages due and owed upon termination that are common to the 

proposed classes; (3) Mr. Delgado’s claims are typical of the claims of all putative class members; 

and (4) Mr. Delgado will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the classes. Dkt. No. 1-1, 

Ex. 1 ¶¶ 16-28. The reasonable and plausible allegations of the complaint, together with Mr. 

Delgado’s uncontested representations that a MarketSource corporate representative has 

confirmed the company uses uniform payroll practices and procedures across the state, establish a 

prima facie showing that the class action requirements are met for purposes of this discovery 

dispute. See, e.g., Barreras v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-4474-PJH, 2015 WL 1886337 at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015); Heredia v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Case No. 16-cv-06236-BLF, 2017 

WL 1316906 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017).

MarketSource objects that even if pre-certification discovery of class member contact 

information is permitted, that discovery should be limited to employees who worked in the same 

location as Mr. Delgado and should exclude any employees who signed an arbitration agreement 

waiving their right to participate in a class action. The Court addresses these objections 

separately.

1. Location-Specific Discovery

As explained above, Mr. Delgado alleges that his own wage statements and his wages paid 

upon termination violated California labor laws, that MarketSource’s conduct with respect to him 

was consistent with statewide company policy and practice, and that MarketSource has itself 

admitted that it uses uniform payroll practices and procedures across California. MarketSource 

points out that Mr. Delgado worked only at one of MarketSource’s locations, but it does not 

Case 5:17-cv-07370-LHK Document 29 Filed 08/28/18 Page 4 of 6
5

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

contend that the company handles wage statements or wage payments upon termination differently 

at any of its locations. The discovery Mr. Delgado seeks falls squarely within the bounds of 

discovery necessary to substantiate the class allegations he has made. See, e.g., Heredia, 2017 

WL 1316906 at *3 (finding defendant had not demonstrated a reason to limit discovery of contact 

information to specific location, in view of allegations of well-pleaded complaint). 

2. Employees with Arbitration Agreements

MarketSource may well be correct that some current and former employees who fall within 

Mr. Delgado’s definitions of the Wage Statement Class and the Final Wages Class will be 

precluded by the class action waivers in their arbitration agreements from participating in this 

action as class members. That issue is properly addressed as part of class certification. However, 

the possible existence of putative class members who have signed arbitration agreements should 

not limit the scope of pre-certification discovery of such members’ contact information, for at least 

two reasons. First, it is not clear at this early stage of the case whether the class action waivers to 

which MarketSource refers are enforceable against the employees who might otherwise be 

members of a class. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (arbitration agreements that 

include class action waivers are not per se unenforceable, but are subject to generally applicable 

contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability). Second, even if some putative 

class members could not join a class, they may well have discoverable information bearing on the 

class action requirements of Rule 23, such as how widespread the alleged violations are (or are 

not) among MarketSource’s current and former employees. See Adamov v. Pricewaterhouse 

Coopers LLP, Case No. 2:13-cv-0122-TLN-AC, 2017 WL 6558133 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017) 

(permitting pre-certification discovery in advance of resolution of whether arbitration agreements 

precluded class participation).

B. Procedures for Obtaining Contact Information

For the reasons described above, Mr. Delgado may obtain discovery of contact information 

for those putative class members that fall within the Wage Statement Class or the Final Wages 

Class as those classes are defined in the complaint. MarketSource shall produce the information 

requested in Mr. Delgado’s Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 4.

Case 5:17-cv-07370-LHK Document 29 Filed 08/28/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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 parties’ discovery dispute letter addresses only the discoverability of the contact 

information of certain current and former MarketSource employees. It does not address the 

procedures for protecting employee privacy with respect to such contact information or the 

procedures for production and use of that information. The parties are ordered to confer 

expeditiously regarding the procedures governing the production and use of employee contact 

information in this case, including: (1) whether a Belaire-West2notification process should be 

used; (2) whether employee contact information will be provided directly to Mr. Delgado’s 

counsel or to a third-party administrator; and (3) whether any additional protections for employee 

confidential information are warranted. 

If the parties concur on these points, they shall jointly file with the Court a stipulation 

documenting their agreement. If the parties do not agree, they may submit their dispute to the 

Court using the Court’s discovery dispute procedures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

Belaire-West Landscape Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 557–58 (2007) 

(describing “opt-out” notice procedure for putative class members).

Case 5:17-cv-07370-LHK Document 29 Filed 08/28/18 Page 6 of 6