Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04546/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04546-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONI YOUNG, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v

POLO RETAIL, LLC, et al,

Defendants. /

No C-02-4546 VRW

ORDER

On June 29, 2006, the court heard oral argument on

plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a proposed

settlement in this putative class action. Doc #133. At the

hearing, the court expressed concern that the printed value of nontransferable Polo gift cards, which comprise nearly a third of the

total proposed settlement amount, might exceed their real economic

value. Accordingly, the court requested that the parties file

documentation indicating the real economic value of these gift

cards for putative class members.

Instead, the parties sent a letter dated July 11, 2006,

to the court. The letter requested a telephone conference with the

court. Such a conference is unnecessary at this time. Rather, the

Case 3:02-cv-04546-VRW Document 141 Filed 07/24/06 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

2

parties should furnish the court the additional information

described in this order.

In the July 11 letter, defendants stated that at the June

29 hearing, “the Court appeared to be seeking information from

Defendants regarding their mark up on the merchandise sold in both

their full price retail and outlet stores.” Doc #132 at 1. 

Contending that this information is “highly confidential and

proprietary,” defendants requested that they be allowed to provide

this information in camera for the court’s review or alternatively

that they be allowed to file the information under seal. Id. 

Defendants subsequently provided the court with this information in

a sealed declaration of Polo Vice President and Labor Counsel, Ravi

Motwani.

The court agrees that evidence of a markup could be

relevant in determining the real economic value of the gift cards. 

But concealing the amount of the markup from the public record is

pointless given that, in order to approve the settlement, the court

must publicly appraise the actual value of the gift cards. 

Accordingly, whatever evidence is filed to document the actual

value of these cards, such as the Motwani declaration, must be

filed publicly before the court can rely on that evidence.

The July 11 letter also indicates that defendants “have

cost summaries of employee purchases which were prepared by their

retained consultants during the litigation of this action. These

summaries were not produced to plaintiffs[’] counsel, but were

reviewed and relied upon at the mediation by all parties and the

mediator to analyze the settlement value of this action. While not

specifically requested by the Court, these summaries would seem

Case 3:02-cv-04546-VRW Document 141 Filed 07/24/06 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

3

relevant to the Court’s inquiries. However, they are confidential

and subject to the attorney client privilege and the submission of

this information to the Court in the form of a publicly filed

document would necessarily constitute a waiver of the privilege.” 

Id at 2. Defendants subsequently provided the court with

information about the cost summaries in the sealed Motwani

declaration.

As with evidence of a markup, evidence regarding cost

summaries must also be filed publicly to permit the court to

appraise publicly the value of the settlement. Moreover, the court

is unclear why these summaries could not be publicly filed, given

that they “were reviewed and relied upon at the mediation by all

parties.” Indeed, reliance on the summaries at the mediation which

led to the proposed settlement would appear to make the summaries

relevant to an evaluation of the settlement. These summaries do

not appear to be offers or promises to compromise subject to FRE

408 or otherwise privileged or protected. The court invites the

parties to provide the cost summaries in a public filing or to

submit information that adequately addresses the court’s inquiries

and not filed under seal.

Finally, pursuant to the court’s request, plaintiffs have

filed a declaration from class representative Toni Young describing

the role that she has played in this litigation. Doc #131. 

Although the declaration includes an estimate of the time that

Young spent working on this case, the declaration does not provide

Young’s salary while she worked at Polo or other income that she

gave up in order to assist in this case. This information is

relevant in determining whether the proposed incentive fee is

Case 3:02-cv-04546-VRW Document 141 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 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

4

reasonable because it relates to Young’s opportunity cost in

pursuing this action. Furthermore, Young claims to have incurred

substantial expenses in connection with prosecution of this action. 

But her declaration does not explain why, if these are legitimate

expenses of the litigation, these expenses were not paid by counsel

who are by virtue of their arrangement with Young, co-owners of her

claim and that of the class. Plaintiffs should ensure that they

include this information in a further submission to the court.

The parties’ further submissions should be filed not

later than July 31, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:02-cv-04546-VRW Document 141 Filed 07/24/06 Page 4 of 4