Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02823/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02823-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1 

14-cv-2823-BEN (WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HONEY McEWAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

OSP GROUP, L.P., et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-2823-BEN (WVG) 

ORDER REGARDING 

COMMUNICATION WITH 

PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS 

 This is a putative class action in which plaintiffs Honey McEwan, Susan Cameron, 

and Lillian Gilden (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek damages for alleged violations of the 

California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 630 et seq. On March 30, 2016, this 

Court ordered defendants OSP Group, L.P., OSP Group Merchant, Inc., OSP Group, Inc., 

and OSP Group, LLC (collectively, “OSP”) to produce the names and contact information 

of putative class members. ECF No. 78. Now before the Court is OSP and defendant Jessica 

London’s (collectively “Defendants”) request that the Court order Plaintiffs to submit any 

proposed written communications with putative class members to Defendants and the 

Court and preclude Plaintiffs from sending any written communication to putative class 

members without the Court’s approval. ECF No. 95. Plaintiff oppose the request. ECF No. 

94. The Court heard oral argument on August 2, 2016. For the reasons discussed below, 

Defendants’ request is DENIED. 

Case 3:14-cv-02823-BEN-WVG Document 99 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

14-cv-2823-BEN (WVG) 

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

 District courts have “broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to 

enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.” Gulf Coast Oil v. 

Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100 (1981) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)). However, “an order 

limiting communications between parties and potential class members should be based on 

a clear record and specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a limitation and 

the potential interference with the rights of the parties.” Id. at 101. “[S]uch a weighing—

identifying the potential abuses being addressed—should result in a carefully drawn order 

that limits speech as little as possible, consistent with the rights of the parties under the 

circumstances.” Id. at 102. “[T]he mere possibility of abuses does not justify routine 

adoption of a communications ban that interferes with the formation of a class or the 

prosecution of a class action in accordance with the Rules.” Id. at 104; see also Domingo 

v New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429, 1438-42 (9th Cir. 1984). 

 Defendants argue that they seek only a “minimal restraint” and that the balancing 

required under Gulf Oil therefore tilts their way upon a showing of only a minimal risk of 

abuse. ECF No. 95 at 4. The Court does not agree. The district court order disapproved in 

Gulf Oil required prior judicial approval of any communication with potential or actual 

class members unless the party seeking to communicate asserted a constitutional right, in 

which case the party was required to file a copy of the communication with the Court within 

five days. 452 U.S. at 94-95. The order that Defendants seek here is admittedly narrower 

than the order at issue in Gulf Oil in that it would apply only to written communications. 

But, like the order in Gulf Oil, Defendants’ proposal would require Plaintiffs to obtain prior 

judicial approval of their communications. And, in contrast to the Gulf Oil order, 

Defendants’ proposal does not include a safety valve for constitutionally protected 

communications. Defendants’ proposal therefore is not a “minimal restraint.” 

 During the discovery conference on August 2, 2016, Defendants proposed, as a more 

limited restriction, that the Court merely order Plaintiffs to turn over all communications 

prior to sending them out. This proposal is, perhaps, a lesser restraint than that imposed by 

the district court in Gulf Oil. Looked at another way, however, the proposal merely shifts 

Case 3:14-cv-02823-BEN-WVG Document 99 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

14-cv-2823-BEN (WVG) 

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

from the Court (a neutral arbiter) to Defendants (an adversary) the job of approving (or, 

more precisely, not objecting to) Plaintiffs’ communications. Such an order which has the 

potential to stymie the usual free flow of communication, is a not an insignificant restraint 

on expression. 

The Court must therefore evaluate whether Defendants have identified potential or 

actual abuses sufficient to justify the imposition of either of Defendants’ proposed orders. 

Defendants have not identified any past abusive conduct or communications by Plaintiffs 

or their attorneys. Instead, Defendants argue that restraints should be imposed because of 

“the risk of abuse inherent in class actions” and because of the potential for damage to 

Defendants’ business relationships with putative class members. ECF No. 95 at 5. 

Creatively, Defendants argue that they need to see Plaintiffs’ communication so that they 

can prepare their call center representatives to field inquiries from concerned 

customers/putative class members. Id. However, Defendants’ “risk of abuse” argument 

fails, as it is in essence, the same argument that was rejected in Gulf Oil. And, absent a 

showing of past or likely abuse, or of some other overriding interest, Defendants’ “business 

relationships” argument is insufficient to justify the restraints that Defendants’ seek here. 

For these reasons, Defendants’ request for restrictions on Plaintiffs’ communications 

is DENIED. However, if Plaintiffs’ communications with putative class members prove 

abusive or misleading, or otherwise injurious, then Defendants may renew their request for 

relief, which may include limitations on Plaintiffs’ communications with putative class 

members and/or sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated August 9, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-02823-BEN-WVG Document 99 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 3