Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00782/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00782-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MAES, on behalf of

himself and on behalf of all

persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12cv782-JAH (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE -

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

CERTAIN PAGA-RELATED

DISCOVERY

[ECF NO. 72]

Before the Court is the joint motion for determination of a

discovery dispute filed on December 24, 2013. (ECF No. 72). Through

certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production, Plaintiff seeks the

employment records of 16 non-parties who are or were employed by

Defendants. Plaintiff claims that these individuals potentially are

“aggrieved employees” under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys

General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiff has chosen not to seek certification of a

class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Defendants object on the grounds that

Plaintiff may not maintain a PAGA representative action in this Court

without compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and has not made a prima

facie showing that the identified employees are potentially aggrieved.

12cv0782-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 73 Filed 01/10/14 Page 1 of 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

Defendants assert that many of the identified individuals cannot be

“aggrieved” under the law. 

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Discussion 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to PAGA discovery

because Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

Although there has not yet been a ruling by the Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit, the majority of district courts that have considered

this issue have ruled that PAGA actions may be maintained without

class certification under Rule 23. See, e.g., Moua v. International

Business Machines, Corporation, 2012 WL 370570 at *3-4 (N.D. Cal.

Jan. 31, 2012). It is not for this Court to determine whether Plaintiff

can maintain this representative action, the question is whether

Plaintiff is entitled to discovery. Defendants have not moved to dismiss

or to strike Plaintiff’s PAGA cause of action. Under these

circumstances, this Court finds that denial of discovery is unwarranted.

Defendants also assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery

regarding the 16 identified individuals because Plaintiff has not made a

prima facie showing that these individuals likely are “aggrieved” under

the law. Defendants rely on Jeske v. California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., 2012 WL 1130639 (E.D. Cal.

March 30, 2012), for the proposition that this prima facie showing is

required. Jeske, however, involved a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s PAGA

claims as overbroad. Id. at *1-3. In that context, the court found that

Plaintiff failed to adequately identify aggrieved employees beyond

reference to their employment with defendant and granted the motion

to dismiss. 

2 12cv0782-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 73 Filed 01/10/14 Page 2 of 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

Regarding discovery, the court in Jeske said that plaintiff must

make a prima facie showing that there has been a violation before

discovery may occur. Id. at *3. In support of that proposition, the court

relied on Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) provides only that the

scope of discovery is limited to “any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” It is not clear to this Court

the manner in which Rule 26(b)(1) requires a prima facie showing

before discovery may be had. Consequently, Jeske is not persuasive on

that point. 

In the related context of class action litigation, in order to obtain

pre-certification class discovery, a plaintiff carries the burden of

making either a prima facie showing that the requirements of

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) to maintain a class action have been met or “that

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

Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). In the context

of a PAGA representative action, the Court finds sufficient similarity

with class actions such that the same logic applies. The Court finds

that in the ordinary case, a plaintiff must do more than merely allege

that a non-party may be aggrieved in order to obtain discovery that

may invade privacy rights of third parties and may constitute an

unwarranted burden on a defendant.

In the instant case, however, the pool of potential aggrieved

employees is limited to the 16 identified by Plaintiff. The Court agrees

with Plaintiff that the requested discovery does not impose a

substantial burden on Defendants. The Court also agrees with

Defendants that the requested discovery does implicate the privacy

interests of the identified individuals. In addition, Defendants assert

that the 16 identified persons include individuals who cannot qualify as

3 12cv0782-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 73 Filed 01/10/14 Page 3 of 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

aggrieved employees in this action because they did not, at any

relevant time, carry the job titles of employees that Plaintiff purports

to represent, or they did not work in California, or they signed

severance agreements releasing all claims or signed binding arbitration

agreements. Considering the size of the pool, the Court will exercise its

discretion and not require Plaintiff to make a prima facie showing

regarding the 16 at this time. Instead, the Court will limit discovery

based upon the relevant allegations of the complaint. 

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identifies the aggrieved

employees that he intends to represent as follows:

PLAINTIFF brings this Representative Action on behalf of

the State of California with respect to himself and all other

individuals who are or previously were employed by

DEFENDANT as "Business Analysts," "Business Analysts

II," "Business Analysts III," "Information Analysts,"

"Information Analysts II," and "Information Analysts III" in

California during the applicable statutory period of

February 3, 2011 to the present (the "AGGRIEVED

EMPLOYEES"). 

(ECF No. 10, §94). The Court finds that Plaintiff may have the

requested discovery regarding any of the 16 identified individuals who

are or were employed by Defendants as Business Analysts or

Information Analysts in California from February 3, 2011 to date. The

Court finds that to the extent any of these individuals whose

employment records may be discovered executed general releases as

part of a severance agreement or agreed to binding arbitration

regarding their employment claims, those matters are better

considered in the context of whether their claims can be maintained in

this action and should not, in this case, preclude discovery. To the

extent that Plaintiff seeks to broaden the represented aggrieved

employees beyond the 16 he has identified, the Court will require a

showing that such employees are likely to be aggrieved and are within

4 12cv0782-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 73 Filed 01/10/14 Page 4 of 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

the group identified by Plaintiff in his First Amended Complaint. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, as presented in this Joint Motion,

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to respond to Set Three

Interrogatories 17 and 18 and Set Five Requests for Production 1 and 2

is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth herein. 

Defendants must respond regarding any of the 16 individuals as

identified in Set Three Interrogatories 17 and 18 who are or were

employed by Defendants as Business Analysts or Information Analysts

in California from February 3, 2011 to date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2014

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

5 12cv0782-JAH (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 73 Filed 01/10/14 Page 5 of 5