Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00782/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00782-0/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

TO DETERMINE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE - DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO

IDENTIFY CLASS MEMBERS 

[ECF NO. 49]

Before the Court is the joint motion for determination of a

discovery dispute filed on February 12, 2013. (ECF No. 49). The

dispute regards Plaintiff’s request for contact information for all

putative class members and aggrieved employees. The Court held a

hearing on March 1, 2013. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion

is DENIED.

History of the Dispute

On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to determine

a discovery dispute regarding Defendants’ responses to two

interrogatories. (See ECF No. 26). Interrogatory No. 5 required

12cv0782

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 52 Filed 03/05/13 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 to state the job duties performed by all class members

during the relevant period. Interrogatory No. 6 required Defendants to

identify all putative class members and aggrieved employees. 

Regarding Interrogatory No. 5, Defendants asserted, among other

things, that the job titles of the employees who would be part of the

putative class are structural only and there are no specific job

descriptions or duties assigned to the various titles. Consequently, it

was not possible to describe all of the job duties performed by potential

class members. Regarding Interrogatory No. 6, Defendants asserted

that discovery of the identities of putative class members was

premature and there was an insufficient basis to require it. (Id.).

On November 26, 2012, the Court held a conference in chambers

regarding four pending discovery disputes including the dispute over

Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6. (ECF No. 37). Following the conference,

the Court issued an Order requiring a further response from

Defendants regarding Interrogatory No. 5. Regarding Interrogatory

No. 6, the Court declined to require Defendants to produce contact

information for putative class members pending their supplemental

response to Interrogatory No. 5. (ECF No. 38).

On December 17, 2012, in advance of a case management

conference, Defendants filed a notice regarding their compliance with

the Court’s Order for supplementation of their answer to Interrogatory

No. 5. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff disputes that the response to

Interrogatory No. 5 is sufficient and, consequently, is pressing for a

ruling regarding Interrogatory No. 6 in the instant joint motion filed on

February 12, 2013. (ECF Nos. 48, 49). 

2 12cv0782

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 52 Filed 03/05/13 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

Legal Standard

Prior to certification of a class, some discovery regarding the class

may be appropriate. See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571

F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009)(“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.”). 

Discovery likely is warranted where the requested discovery will

resolve factual issues necessary for the determination of whether the

action may be maintained as a class action. Kamm v. California City

Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). 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). 

Analysis 

Defendants supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 5

describes a system wherein employees who carry identical job titles

may have very different job duties even within the same office.

Defendants also provided an extensive list of the possible job duties

within the various job titles. (See ECF 43-1 at pages 5-12). Plaintiff

has presented no evidence that the supplemental response is

incomplete or inadequate. The Court finds that no further

supplementation is required except as provided at Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). 

Interrogatory No. 6 called upon Defendants to identify all class

members and aggrieved employees. Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that 1

 In addition to class allegations, Plaintiff brought a claim pursuant to 1

the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) under California law. Cal.

Labor Code §§ 2968 et seq. Under California law, a PAGA action need not

meet the procedural requirements of a class action. Arias v. Superior Court,

3 12cv0782

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 52 Filed 03/05/13 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

Plaintiff cannot meet the burden of showing a prima facie case for class

certification at this time. Plaintiff has offered no evidence that the

discovery sought likely would substantiate the class allegations. 

Applying Mantolete, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel a

response to Interrogatory No. 6. 

Assuming that Plaintiff did meet the burden under Mantolete of

showing that the requested discovery likely would substantiate the

class allegations, the Court would have authorized some discovery. As

the Court explained at the hearing, the discovery would have been of

some percentage of the potential class. See, e.g., Murphy v. Target

Corp., 2011 WL 2413439 (No. 09cv1436 S.D. Cal. June 14, 2011). The

parties confirmed at the hearing on this matter that the putative class

contains approximately 83 potential members. Defendants assert that

58 of the potential class members have arbitration clauses in their

employment agreements rendering them ineligible for membership in

the class. (ECF No. 49 at ECF pp. 27-28). Counsel for Plaintiff

confirmed at the hearing that Plaintiff has the contact information for

eight potential class members that worked in the same office as

Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the eight potential class

members have not been contacted based upon a concern that such

contact might be viewed as improper. Counsel for Defendants,

however, disclaimed any such concern. 

Plaintiff has the contact information of roughly 10% of the entire

class and as much as roughly 30% of the class if the arbitration clauses

46 Cal.4th 969 (2009),The federal courts in California, even within this

District, are split on the issue. Compare Ivey v. Apogen Technologies,

Inc.2011 WL 3515936 (S.D. Cal. 2011) with Williams v. Lockheed Martin

Corp., Case No. 090cv1669, ECF No. 134 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012). Until

such time as class certification in this case is resolved, the Court will not

differentiate the causes of action for discovery purposes. 

4 12cv0782

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 52 Filed 03/05/13 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

in the employment agreements are determined to be valid. Plaintiff

has at least as much, if not more, contact information than would have

been authorized by the Court. It would be grounds to deny the motion

that Plaintiff has the information that the Court would have otherwise

authorized. See Taylor v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 2012 WL 5574876 (No.

09cv2909 S.D. Cal. April 27, 2012). The Court finds that Plaintiff

should be able to determine the feasibility of proceeding with a motion

for class certification with the information available to him.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants

to respond to Interrogatory No. 6 and identify the class members and

aggrieved employees is DENIED.

DATED: March 5, 2013

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

5 12cv0782

Case 3:12-cv-00782-JAH-MDD Document 52 Filed 03/05/13 Page 5 of 5