Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02552/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02552-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-02552-LB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

December 11, 2015VLAD TSYN,

individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. 3:14-02552-LB 

DISCOVERY AND CASEMANAGEMENT ORDER

This order summarizes the rulings at the December 10 case-management conference.

1. Personal cell-phone numbers and email addresses

Generally courts order the production of complete contact information. (See Joint CaseManagement Conference, ECF 721

 at 5, citing Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 2012 WL 19379, *14

(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2012) and Fausto v. Cibergy Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 427, 430 (N.D. Cal. 2008).)

The court orders it here. To the extent that the defendants have only “home numbers,” the court

orders those numbers produced too for the reasons stated on the record. Wells Fargo argues in part

that the plaintiffs’ “thousands of repeated solicitations” to putative class members ought to change

Case 3:14-cv-02552-LB Document 76 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-02552-LB 2

the outcome. That reason is not sufficiently convincing to prevent disclosure of contact information.

As the plaintiffs pointed out at the hearing, that is the reason for the privacy notice.

2. Content of notice: Reference to earlier communications from the plaintiffs’ counsel

Wells Fargo proposes – and the plaintiffs oppose as redundant and disparaging – language about

the plaintiffs’ counsel’s prior communications with putative class members. (See id. at 8.) Wells

Fargo argues that it is relevant and useful to tell recipients that this is the “same case” on which they

may have been contacted before. (See id. at 10). That can be said more directly and succinctly as a

standalone comment: “This is the same case on which you may have been contacted previously.”

Otherwise, the plaintiffs are right: the proposed language is redundant of the agreed content. 

3. Description of the misclassification claim

The plaintiffs want to describe the misclassification claim like this: “The lawsuit claims that

WFA violated California and federal law by failing to pay overtime compensation to Financial

Advisors.” (Id. at 10.) Wells Fargo wants to say this: “Plaintiff alleges that WFA violated California

and federal law by not classifying its Plaintiff and other Financial Advisors as ‘hourly’ employees

and therefore not paying them premium overtime compensation.” (Id.) The parties’ dispute in part is

about the inclusion of the term “hourly” — whether this term is “inflammatory” (as the plaintiffs

say) and whether the description should include it because it is necessarily part of the plaintiffs’

theory of entitlement to overtime pay (as Wells Fargo says). (Id. at 10-12.)

The court ordered a middle-ground description, such as “The lawsuit claims that Wells Fargo

violated federal and California law by misclassifying its Financial Advisors as employees who did

not need to be paid overtime compensation.” The point (as the plaintiffs argue) is that all workers

are paid overtime unless proven exempt. So, strictly, workers are either classified (or misclassified)

as exempt. They are not classified or misclassified as hourly or salaried. At best, the term “hourly” is

superfluous; the court’s description is simpler and conveys the legal context.

4. Contact information for counsel

Given the court’s determination that the notice will state that this is the “same case” on which

potential plaintiffs may have already been contacted, the parties agreed that the privacy notice will

contain the contact information for both plaintiffs’ and defense counsel.

Case 3:14-cv-02552-LB Document 76 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-02552-LB 

5. Motions

The parties remain free to adjust the briefing and hearing schedules to meet their joint

assessment of the case’s best procedural posture. They also may file any motions on the ordinary

briefing schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2016 __________________________ LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02552-LB Document 76 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:14-cv-02552-LB Document 76 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 4