Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02520/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02520-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

PRAG TIERNO, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

 RITE AID CORPORATION, 

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02520 TEH

ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LARSON’S

ORDER TO COMPEL

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Rite Aid Corporation’s

objections to Magistrate Judge Larson’s June 16, 2006 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion

to Compel. Having carefully considered the parties’ written arguments and the record,

the objections are denied. The Court is not persuaded that the June 16 ruling is either

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); United States v.

Saunders, 641 F.2d 659, 663-64, n.1 (9th Cir. 1980). 

DISCUSSION

On March 31, 2006, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendant to provide further

responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, including Interrogatory No. 1 asking for the

names and home contact information of putative class members. In his June 16, 2006

ruling, Magistrate Judge Larson found that the information provided in response to

Interrogatory No. 1 included, “no identifying information and [that the information was]

useless to Plaintiffs.” June 16, 2006 Order at 5:15-16. Noting that the Court has an

obligation under Rule 23(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter orders to

facilitate class actions, “including ordering defendants to assist Plaintiffs’ counsel in

identifying and notifying members of the putative class,” id. at 5, the Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02520-TEH Document 88 Filed 08/31/06 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

ordered that a jointly drafted letter be sent “advising Rite Aid employees of the existence

and substance of this lawsuit,” as well as of their right not to be contacted by plaintiffs’

counsel. Id. at 7:1-5. In order to avail themselves of this right not to be contacted, the

employees were to be instructed that “they must affirmatively state this [desire].” Id. at

7:5. 

The Magistrate Judge also concluded that because he had not regulated the

parties’ communications to the putative class members and defense counsel had already

initiated such contacts, and thereby “gotten a head start on Plaintiffs,” that in all fairness,

Plaintiffs should be provided the same essentially unregulated opportunity to

communicate: “If Rite Aid’s attorney’s may contact its employees then certainly

Plaintiffs’ attorneys may.” Id. at 4. 

Defendant has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s Order is contrary to any law;

nor is the Court left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed. Defendant’s privacy-based objections to the requirement that putative class

members affirmatively state (within 30 days of notice) their desire not to be contacted by

Plaintiffs’ counsel are not persuasive given that a protective order is in place. The Court

further notes that it has granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification simultaneously

with this Order. Accordingly, to the extent that Defendant’s objections are based on the

fact that the June 16, 2006 Order pre-dated disposition of the motion for class

certification, those objections are moot.

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules

Defendant’s objections to Magistrate Judge Larson’s Order of June 16, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

dated: August 31, 2006 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

 JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02520-TEH Document 88 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 2