Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05156/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05156-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY KRZESNIAK,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CENDANT CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-5156 MEJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR CONTACT

INFORMATION

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed March 5, 2007. 

(Doc. #34.) In the letter, plaintiff Stanley Krzesniak seeks a court order compelling Defendants to

produce the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all managers who worked for them during

the liability period. Although no class has been certified in this matter, Plaintiff argues that the

requested information is relevant with respect to liability, damages, and class certification issues. 

Defendants argue that the Court should postpone ruling on this discovery until after Plaintiff proves

that he is an adequate class representative. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has access to

putative class members, as evidenced by his deposition testimony in which he testified that he had

already spoken to at least six putative class members. 

Prior to certification, courts typically limit discovery to certification issues such as the

number of class members, existence of common questions, typicality of claims, and the

representative's ability to represent the class. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

(1978). Such discovery may be permitted where the plaintiff meets the burden of showing that

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 35 Filed 03/08/07 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

discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations. Mantolete v. Bolger,

767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985).

Here, the Court finds that good cause may exist to permit the requested discovery were

Plaintiff and his counsel unable to locate and interview any putative class members. However, it

appears that Plaintiff has already spoken to at least six putative class members and may have access

to others. Given that the potential class totals 76 members, it is unclear why these individuals would

not provide Plaintiff with adequate information to move for class certification. Further, the Court is

aware that compelling the production of contact information prior to class certification may result in

"court-initiated notice to potential claimants," which would be inappropriate. In re Air Disaster

Near Honolulu, Hawaii, 792 F.Supp. 1541, 1551 (N.D. Cal. 1990) ("court-initiated notice to

potential claimants may represent an extraordinary and untoward expansion of federal judicial

power"). Thus, while the contact information may be relevant after class certification, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff's request at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05156-MEJ Document 35 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2