Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a California wage and hour class action lawsuit.1 It

is brought by persons who were employed as unlicensed junior

accountants (“Junior Associates” or “Attest Junior Associates”) by

////

////

1

 Jurisdiction is based upon class action diversity, 28 U.S.C.

1332(d)(2)(A).

1

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 9
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

the Attest group at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (“PwC”)2 in

California, from October 27, 2002 to the filing of the Second

Amended Complaint.3 On March 25, 2008, the court certified the

class of Attest Junior Associates.4 Campbell v.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 253 F.R.D. 586 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

The certified class Plaintiffs allege that PwC improperly

classified them as “exempt” employees under California labor laws,

and failed to pay them required overtime (and to provide certain

other benefits). Defendants assert that plaintiffs are exempt from

the overtime requirement.

On August 14, 2008, this court denied defendant’s motion to

consolidate this case with Le v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Civ. S:8-

997 (E.D. Cal.), and Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Civ. S:8-965

(E.D. Cal.). Discovery closed on February 20, 2009.5

On March 11, 2009, this court granted plaintiffs’ motion for

partial summary judgment on defendant’s “exemption” affirmative

defense, holding that plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime

laws. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the exemption

2

 Attest is a sub-division of Assurance, which is a subdivision of PwC.

3

 The parties variously refer to the plaintiffs as “junior

accountants,” “associate accountants,” “associates” and “Attest

Associates.” The court will refer to them as Junior Associates or

Attest Junior Associates.

4 The court excluded senior associates from the class. 

Campbell, 253 F.R.D. at 605-06.

5

 Defendant’s motion to re-open discovery was denied on

December 12, 2011. Dkt. No. 504.

2

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 9
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

issue was a question of fact for the jury.6

On November 1, 2011, plaintiffs in Kress moved for class

certification of persons employed as “Senior Associates” in the

Assurance sub-division of PwC. Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers,

LLC, Civ:S 8-964 (E.D. Cal.) (Dkt. No. 245). It appears to be

undisputed that some of the Senior Associates sought to be

certified in Kress used to be Attest Junior Associates during the

class period. Therefore, these Senior Associates are also class

members in Campbell.

II. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs seek a “protective order” enjoining PwC and its

counsel (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Orrick, Herrington &

Sutcliffe), from interviewing Campbell class members – Attest

Junior Associates during the class period – without the consent of

class counsel (Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff). Plaintiffs assert that

this conduct violates the California Code of Conduct for attorneys,

Rule 2-100(A). Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., governs “Protective

Orders” in discovery. Plaintiffs seem to be arguing that

defendant’s “private discovery,” conducted outside the discovery

process, is an impermissible attempt to circumvent the rules of

discovery and furthermore are being conducted in violation of

counsel’s ethical obligations, thus warranting a protective order.7

6

 Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 642 F.3d 820 (9th

Cir. 2011), rev’g 602 F. Supp.2d 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

7

 See Bernal v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co., 196 F.R.D. 371

(E.D. Cal. March 14, 2000) (Damrell, J.) (issuing protective order

to stop railroad from contacting represented employee plaintiff)

3

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 9
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

Defendant asserts the right to interview these class members

so that it can prepare its opposition to the class certification

motion in Kress. In fact, it appears that defendant has already

interviewed some of the Campbell class members. While defendant

concedes that it has been talking to Campbell class members, and

wishes to continue doing so, it asserts that it is not talking to

them about the subject of their representation.

III. STANDARDS

“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move

for a protective order ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The court may

issue a protective order for “good cause.” Id. "The party

opposing disclosure has the burden of proving 'good cause,' which

requires a showing 'that specific prejudice or harm will result'

if the protective order is not granted." Father M. v. Various Tort

Claimants (In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon),

661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (regarding protective order

enjoining public disclosure of discovery documents), cert. denied,

566 U.S. , 80 U.S.L.W. 3562 (April 2, 2012).

IV. ANALYSIS

Both sides agree that PwC (and its counsel) may not talk to

the Attest Junior Associates – the Campbell class plaintiffs –

“about the subject” of their representation by class counsel. See

Defendant’s Legal Contentions (Dkt. No. 509) at 35; Plaintiff’s

(“Discovery is closed in this case. SP/UP may not continue to

engage in ex parte communications ordering plaintiff to disclose

information regarding the subject matter of this litigation under

the guise of exercising its rights under the CBA”).

4

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 9
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

Legal Contentions (Dkt. No. 509) at 15. There seems to be no

disagreement that this remains true even for those Campbell class

members who are now Senior Associates.

Rather, the sole focus of the arguments is whether PwC’s

communications with those Campbell class members are “on the

subject” of their representation by class counsel. On this,

defendant avoids the issue, relying instead on an implicit argument

that only communications about class members’ own duties as Attest

Junior Associates are covered. The argument is implicit, because

PwC does not state outright that the subject of the representation

only covers a class member’s own Junior Associate duties. Instead,

over and over, PwC states that counsel will not talk to Campbell

class members about their own work as Attest Junior Associates.8

It never addresses whether counsel will talk with Campbell class

members about the work of other Attest Junior Associates, namely,

8

 See PwC’s Position (Dkt. No. 509) at 8 (“the interview ...

will not include any questions on the subject of the employee’s

duties as an Associate”). See also, PwC’s Contentions (Dkt.

No. 509) at 38 (“PwC was able to interview its employees about

their duties and responsibilities as Senior Associates without

discussing their duties and responsibilities as Associates”)

(emphasis added); id. at 42 (“PwC has been entirely vigilant in its

efforts to ensure that all contacts with Campbell class members are

voluntary on the part of the employees and that there is no

discussion with Campbell class members about their Associate

responsibilities”) (emphasis added); id. at 42 (“PwC’s attorneys

also made clear ... that they were not there to speak about the

Campbell lawsuit nor about work performed while an Attest

Associate”) (emphasis added); id. at 42 (“PwC’s attorneys did not

question these individuals regarding their duties and

responsibilities as Associates”) (emphasis added). See also, PwC’s

Supplemental Memorandum (Dkt. No. 541) at 11 (the fact of

supervision “does not reflect whether the unidentified subjects of

supervision are even members of the Campbell class”). 

5

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 5 of 9
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

those Attest Junior Associates whom they supervise and whose work

they review.9 Thus, the court interprets PwC’s implicit argument

to be that communications about the work of someone else’s duties

as an Attest Junior Associate are not covered by the ban on

communications.

Plaintiffs take a broader view. They argue that PwC’s

communications with Campbell class members “cannot help” but

include communications “about the inter-related job

responsibilities of Attest Associates.” Dkt. No. 509 at p.18. 

Plaintiffs note that Senior Associates supervise Junior Attest

Associates. Id. Indeed, this court has already found that “[a]

significant if not primary responsibility for senior associates is

to review the work of associates.” Campbell v.

9

 At one point, PwC misinterprets its own declaration to

insinuate that the interviews of Senior Associates will not discuss

the work of any Associate: “Most importantly, PwC made it clear

that there would be no discussion of the duties and

responsibilities of Attest Associates and the Campbell case, and

indeed no such discussions have occurred. Thomasch Decl. ¶¶ 12,

14, 15.” Defendant’s Legal Contentions (Dkt. No. 509) at 43. But

the insinuation is incorrect. The declaration upon which this

statement is based only denies that there was any discussion about

the Senior Associate’s own responsibilities from the time he was

an Attest Junior Associate. See Thomasch Decl. ¶ 12 (“The HR

Admonishment for Campbell class members also made clear that

outside counsel, who would be conducting the interviews, would not

ask questions about the employee’s Associate responsibilities .... 

Neither PwC nor its attorneys will ask you any questions about the

job duties you performed as an Attest Associate ....”) (emphasis

added); ¶ 14 (same); ¶ 15 (every attorney from Orrick and Gibson

who performed these interviews confirms that “no questions were

asked of the Campbell class members that sought information about

the employee’s responsibilities as an Attest Associate at PwC” and

“there was no discussion during the interview about the employee’s

responsibilities and duties as a PwC Associate”) (emphasis added). 

It never denies that there was discussion of any Attest Junior

Associate’s duties.

6

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 6 of 9
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

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 253 F.R.D. 586, 604-05 (E.D.

Cal. 2008).

Plaintiffs have the better of the argument. The subject of

the representation is not just a particular Campbell class member’s

own experience as an Attest Junior Associate. It includes the work

experiences of the class members – Attest Junior Associates –

during the class period. Their current work in supervising Attest

Junior Associates can reasonably be expected to throw light upon

the class members’s own work experiences during the class period. 

When PwC, or its counsel, talks to the Senior Associates about

their own work in supervising the Attest Junior Associates, they

cannot avoid talking about the work the Seniors are supervising,

namely, the work of Attest Junior Associates. Similarly, when PwC,

or its counsel, talks to the Senior Associates about their reviews

of the Associates’ work, they cannot avoid talking about the work

under review, namely, the work of Attest Junior Associates. The

work of Senior Associates in reviewing Attest Junior Associates is

joined at the hip with the work of the Attest Junior Associates;

they are simply different sides of the same work.

Indeed, even if PwC’s implicit argument were accepted, the

declarations plaintiffs filed after the hearing on this matter show

how impossible it was for PwC to avoid talking even about the

declarant’s own experiences as a Attest Junior Associate. To take

just one example, the Declaration of Jared Enbom discusses his

supervision of Junior Attest Associates, and asserts: “in order to

effectively review work product, I needed to know what to look for,

7

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 7 of 9
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

for which I relied on my cumulative audit and accounting

experience, as well as my education and training.” But Enbom’s

cumulative audit and accounting experience necessarily includes his

experience as a Junior Attest Associate. The Declaration - which

of course is not a transcript of the secret interview PwC conducted

with Enbom – does not disclose how deeply he discussed his

cumulative experience with PwC’s counsel, or if he did so at all. 

But it is sufficient to know that the subject was discussed, as

disclosed in the Declaration.10

Good cause exists to issue a protective order to ensure that

no such secret communications occur in the future.11 The court

sees no prejudice to PwC in this, as it had the opportunity to seek

depositions or other discovery of Campbell class members while

discovery was still open. If it wishes to get discovery of Senior

Associates who are Campbell class members, it presumably can seek

class counsel’s consent, serve interrogatories, or depose them for

as long as discovery is open in Kress.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for a protective

10 After the hearing on this case, at the court’s request,

plaintiffs disclosed the declarations of Campell class members

which were submitted by defendants in the related Kress case.

11 Other courts have granted such relief in these

circumstances. See, e.g., Resnick v. American Dental Ass'n, 95

F.R.D. 372, 377 (D. Ill. 1982) (granting protective order to enjoin

defendant’s communications with its employees who are member of the

class).

8

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 8 of 9
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

order is GRANTED.12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17. 2012.

12 Class counsel has not thus far sought any relief regarding

plaintiff class members who have already been secretly interviewed

by defense counsel, and accordingly the court does not address the

issue. In any event, PwC’s (and its counsel’s) early request for

guidance on this issue, and its openness about the fact that it was

conducting these interviews does not seem to support an inference

that it was aware that the interviews were "on the subject" of the

class members’ representation by class counsel.

9

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 544 Filed 04/18/12 Page 9 of 9