Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05604/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05604-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adecco, Inc
Defendant
Shavotnae Goldsby
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

Indeed, plaintiff has not shown she is entitled to the addresses of the putative class

members in the absence of the putative class members’ having been provided an

opportunity to object to the disclosure of such private information. See Belaire-West

Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 557, 561 (2007).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAVOTNAE GOLDSBY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ADECCO, INC.,

Defendant /

No. C-07-5604 MMC

ORDER REFERRING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS

Before the Court are plaintiff’s “Objections to Magistrate Judge Spero’s August 5,

2008 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel,” filed August

15, 2008. Defendant has filed a response thereto. Having read and considered the parties’

submissions, the Court rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff objects to the denial of her request to compel defendant to provide

telephone numbers of putative class members. Such objection is hereby DENIED, for the

reason plaintiff fails to make any showing of her entitlement to such information.1

2. Plaintiff also objects to the restriction on her counsel’s ability to contact the

putative class members whose names and addresses are provided to plaintiff under the

Case 3:07-cv-05604-MMC Document 34 Filed 08/29/08 Page 1 of 2
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

The Magistrate Judge also may wish to consider any effect Brinker Restaurant

Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008), which case was decided subsequent

to the filing of plaintiff’s motion to compel, may have on the issue.

2

terms of the order. Although an order imposing restrictions may be appropriate, such order

must be supported by “specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a limitation

and the potential interference with the rights of the parties.” See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard,

452 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1981). Because the August 5, 2008 order does not expressly include

such findings, the matter is hereby REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of

providing such reasons or otherwise amending the order as the Magistrate Judge deems

appropriate.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05604-MMC Document 34 Filed 08/29/08 Page 2 of 2