Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00842/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00842-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sun Maid Growers of California
Defendant
Jonathon Talavera
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHON TALAVERA, on behalf of 

himself and all other similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUN MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00842-AWI-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER 

(ECF No. 34, 37, 38)

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: April 10, 

2017

I.

BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2017, the Court held an informal telephonic discovery dispute conference 

in this action. (ECF No. 35.) As relevant here, the parties were disputing whether defendant 

should have to produce records for all employees at all of its satellite facilities or only those 

records for the employees who had opted into the conditionally certified FLSA action. (ECF No. 

34.) On February 6, 2017, an order issued requiring Defendant to produce a sampling of 

employment records within fourteen days. (ECF No. 36.) The parties were order to file 

supplemental briefing on Plaintiff’s request to amend the scheduling order. On February 8, 

2017, Plaintiff filed his supplemental briefing; and Defendant filed a supplemental brief on 

February 10, 2017. (Id. at 37, 38.)

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 7
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

In the informal discovery dispute letter brief, Plaintiff also requested a 120 day extension 

of time to conduct discovery regarding the records that were ordered to be produced in the 

dispute, and to allow for an opt-out procedure for disclosure of class member contact 

information. (ECF No. 34 at 3.) Defendant objected to a four month extension of the discovery 

deadline arguing that Plaintiff was not diligent in conducting discovery in this action and agreed 

to a month extension of the discovery schedule once the Court issued its order addressing which 

records were to be produced in the instant dispute. During the informal telephonic conference, 

Plaintiff stated that the 120 day extension of time was needed to allow for Belaire notice to all 

putative class members in this action. Defendant objected to the requested extension and, since 

the parties had not briefed the Belaire issue, the Court ordered supplemental briefing to address 

the issue of Belaire notice.

II.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that there are two separate issues remaining to be addressed in the 

current dispute: 1) whether Plaintiff is entitled to contact information regarding the putative class 

members; and 2) whether the discovery and scheduling order should be amended. The Court 

shall first address the issue of the putative class member contact information.

A. Plaintiff is Entitled to Contact Information for the Putative Class Members

In Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981), the Supreme Court held that class 

counsel in Rule 23 class actions must be permitted to communicate with potential class members 

prior to class certification for the purpose of notification and information gathering. Id. at 101-

02. The Court has found that Plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to state a prima facie claim for 

class relief in this action. (Order Following Informal Discovery Dispute Conference 4-8, ECF 

No. 36.) Defendant does not directly address the contract information for the entire class, but 

argues that the proposed notice to the putative class members is redundant given that the putative 

class has been sent notice of the collective action and 142 individuals have consented to having 

their information provided to Plaintiff’s counsel.

/ / / 

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 2 of 7
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

Contact information on the putative class members is routinely allowed in precertification 

discovery. Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., No. 11-CV-1301-MMA DHB, 2013 WL 2896884, at

*7 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2013). Further, Defendant provides and the Court is unaware of any 

authority to support the argument that Plaintiff is limited in a class action to contact information 

only for those class members that have opted into the FLSA class. The California Supreme 

Court has held that contact information regarding the identity of potential class members is 

generally discoverable and the privacy rights of the individuals can be protected by providing an 

opt-out notice that was mailed in advance of the defendant providing the plaintiff with an 

individual’s contact information. Nguyen, 275 F.R.D. at 506-07. A Belaire notice is the term 

used to describe the opt-out notice sent to potential class members informing them of the lawsuit 

and informing them that if they do not want their contact information released to plaintiff’s 

counsel they may return an enclosed postcard. Id. at 512 fn.3 (citing Belaire–West Landscape 

Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 554 (2007). 

While Defendant argues that the putative class members have already been notified of the 

class action by virtue of the prior notice sent to the FLSA conditional class members, the parties 

do not dispute that this prior notice did not inform the putative class members that they may 

choose not to have their contact information provided to Plaintiff’s counsel nor did the notice 

provide putative class members with a postcard to return if they so desired. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that the prior notice is not sufficient to inform the putative class of their ability to 

protect their privacy rights by refusing to have their contact information turned over to Plaintiff’s 

counsel. Therefore, Defendant shall provide contact information for the putative class after the 

Belaire notice is sent to the putative class, and the class members have had an opportunity to 

enforce their privacy rights under California law.

B. Amended Scheduling Order

Plaintiff seeks to amend the scheduling order by extending the time to conduct 

precertification discovery by 120 days. Defendant contends that a 30 day extension of time is all 

that is necessary to allow for production of the records sought in the informal discovery dispute

in compliance with the February 6, 2017 order.

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 3 of 7
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

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause standard under Rule 16 focuses on the 

movant’s diligence in seeking amendment. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. 

Cal. 1999). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the 

inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern 

California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). To allow a modification of the 

scheduling order without good cause would render scheduling orders essentially meaningless, 

and directly interfere with courts’ attempts to manage their dockets and with the standard course 

of litigation in actions such as this. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (“A scheduling order is not a 

frivolous piece of paper, idly entered . . . .” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). 

To demonstrate diligence under Rule 16’s “good cause” standard, courts may require the 

movant “to show the following: (1) that he was diligent in assisting the court in creating a 

workable Rule 16 order; (2) that his noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will 

occur, notwithstanding his diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters 

which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 

scheduling conference; and (3) that he was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, 

once it became apparent that he could not comply with the order.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. 

of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). 

The relevant scheduling order in this action issued on June 16, 2016, and the deadline to 

conduct non-expert discovery was set for February 10, 2017. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff 

propounded discovery to Defendant and responses were served in August 2016. (ECF No. 34 at 

3.) On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant regarding the 

discovery dispute. (Id. at 1.) Defendant responded by e-mail on December 6, 2016. (Id.) 

On December 21, 2016, the parties had a conference call in which they discussed 

Defendant’s privacy objection to the putative class members contact information. (Id.; ECF No. 

37 at 2.) Defendant said it would be willing to provide contact information for Kingsburg 

employees if an opt-out notice was sent first, and it was Plaintiff’s position that the discovery 

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 4 of 7
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

5

deadline would need to be extended. (Id.) The parties were to continue the discussion after the 

holidays. (Id.) The parties were unable to agree upon the universe of individuals for whom 

discovery should be provided; and the parties agreed to have their dispute addressed through this 

Court’s informal discovery dispute procedure. On January 30, 2016 a minute order issued 

setting an informal discovery dispute conference for February 3, 2016. (ECF No. 33.) 

In this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrate that he was diligent in 

conducting the precertification discovery in this action. Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s 

objection to the request for putative class member contact information on or around August 

2016. In August 2016 when Defendant served its objections to Plaintiff’s discovery request, it 

should have been apparent to Plaintiff that providing Belaire notice was going to be an issue in 

this action because the parties had a dispute as to the universe of employees. “The use of orders 

establishing a firm discovery cutoff date is commonplace, and has impacts generally helpful to 

the orderly progress of litigation, so that the enforcement of such an order should come as a 

surprise to no one.” Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 

2006). Yet, Plaintiff did not start meet and confer efforts until November 23, 2016, 

approximately three months after the dispute arose. Since “good-faith compliance with Rule 16 

plays an important role in [the case management process],” not only must parties participate 

from the outset in creating a workable Rule 16 scheduling order but they must also diligently 

attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the litigation. Jackson, 

186 F.R.D. at 607 (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

Further, Plaintiff was aware by December 21, 2016, that the parties could not agree 

regarding the universe of information to be produced. Plaintiff was also aware that the Belaire

notice would be a prolonged process that could not be addressed within the current discovery 

schedule. Had Plaintiff addressed Defendant’s objections to providing the contact information of 

the putative class members at the time the objection was raised in August 2016 there was 

adequate time to address the dispute, provide Belaire notice, and receive putative class member 

contact information. “Discovery disputes are not grounds which render a litigant ‘unable to 

comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters that could not have reasonably been 

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 5 of 7
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

6

foreseen at the time of the issuance of the scheduling order.’ ” Thomason v. City of Fowler, No. 

1:13-CV-00336-AWI, 2014 WL 4436385, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014) ( quoting Kuschner v. 

Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 2009)). 

Finally, Plaintiff did not move to amend the scheduling order until February 2, 2017, 

approximately one week before the non-expert discovery deadline when he was aware as early as 

August 2016, and no later than December 21, 2016, that providing Belaire notice was going to be 

an issue given Defendant’s objection to providing contact information for all satellite facility 

employees. 

Plaintiff has not provided any reason for these delays in addressing the discovery disputes 

and moving to amend the scheduling order. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated 

due diligence in complying with the scheduling order issued in this action or in seeking 

amendment of the scheduling order. See Morgal, 284 F.R.D. at 462 (lack of diligence 

demonstrated by four month delay in seeking amendment of complaint); Sharp v. Covenant Care 

LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 468 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (defendants did not demonstrate diligence where 

three month delay in seeking to amend scheduling order after apparent it could not be complied 

with); cf Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 688 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (due 

diligence shown where party filed motion to amend less than a week after efforts to obtain 

stipulation proved unsuccessful).

However, the Court has ordered Defendant to produce supplemental discovery within 

fourteen days of February 6, 2017. Therefore, the Court shall grant the request to amend the 

scheduling order so Defendant can comply with the February 6, 2017 order requiring production 

of documents and for Plaintiff to review and pursue discovery on these documents. The Court 

finds that a two month extension of the scheduling order will be sufficient for this purpose.

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 6 of 7
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

7

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for contact information on the putative class members is 

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for modification of the scheduling order is GRANTED IN 

PART; and

3. The deadline to conduct non-expert discovery for class certification is extended to 

April 10, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB Document 39 Filed 02/14/17 Page 7 of 7