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

The relevant portion of the Wage Order provides that “[a]ll working employees shall be

provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits use of seats.” The

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

MELISSA S. CURRIE-WHITE, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLOCKBUSTER, INC.; and DOES 1 through

50, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-2593 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

(DKT. #59)

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the joint discovery dispute letter ("Joint Letter") filed by Plaintiff Melissa

Currie-White ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Blockbuster Inc. ("Defendant") on February 16, 2010. 

(Dkt. #59.) After consideration of the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a current employee of Defendant, filed this putative class action against Defendant

under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.,

alleging that Defendant violated the Labor Code and section 14 of Wage Order 7-2001 (“Wage

Order”). (Joint Letter at 1; Pl’s. First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 1, Dkt. #27.) Plaintiff alleges

that, under the Wage Order, Defendant is required to provide suitable seats for its employees, and

argues that Defendant failed to provide seats for employees working as Customer Service

Representatives.1 (Joint Letter at 1; FAC ¶¶ 4, 7, Dkt. #27.) Plaintiff seeks certification under

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 6
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

Wage Order further provides that “[w]hen employees are not engaged in the active duties of their

employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall

be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such

seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.” Wage Order 7-2001, Section

14; Joint Letter at 1. 

2

In the Joint Letter, the parties stated that Exhibit 2 to the Joint Letter was Defendant’s

Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. (Joint Letter at 1.) However, the actual Exhibit

2 was Defendant’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff. 

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23 of the following class: “All persons who, during the

applicable statute of limitations, were employed by Blockbuster in the State of California in the

position of Customer Service Representative, or similar position that regularly involves or has

involved the operation of a cash register, and were not provided with a seat.” (FAC ¶ 8, Dkt. #27.) 

At issue is Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, which asks Defendant to provide the name, home

address, and home telephone number of “each person who held the position of Customer Service

Representative (including any similar position that regularly involves the operation of a cash

register) in a Blockbuster store in the State of California at any time between April 24, 2008 and the

present[,]” the store or stores where that person worked, and the position or positions held. (Joint

Letter, Ex. 1.) In responding to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s

request as unduly burdensome and overbroad. (Jones Decl., Ex. 2, Dkt. #44.)2

 Defendant further

objected that the information sought in Interrogatory No. 2 is private and must be protected as such. 

Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

In the Joint Letter, Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to

produce the names, addresses and telephone numbers (“contact information”) of the putative class

members. (Joint Letter at 1.) Plaintiff argues that this contact information is necessary to assemble

information she needs to meet the elements required for class certification under Rule 23, and argues

that the putative class members will likely be the most knowledgeable regarding key facts in the

case relevant to class certification issues. Id. at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the contact

information is likely to lead to information that would substantiate the following class allegations:

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 6
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

(1) that the layout of Defendant’s stores are similar and that no seats are provided in any stores; (2)

that the nature of cashier work in Defendant’s stores is similar, and that the nature of the work

reasonably permits use of a seat; (3) that common questions of law and fact predominate over

individual issues; (4) that Plaintiff’s claim of injury resulting from Defendant’s failure to provide

seats is typical of the class; and (5) that a class action is the superior means of adjudication for this

case. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also argues that the contact information is necessary for her to determine the

existence of a class or set of subclasses. Id. 

In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for contact information of all current

and former employees of Defendant during the relevant time period is burdensome in that it includes

more than 9,000 individuals from over 500 stores throughout California. Id. at 3. Defendant argues

that producing the contact information for these 9,000-plus individuals is not necessary for Plaintiff

to satisfy Rule 23 class certification requirements. Id. at 4. Defendant further argues that because

Plaintiff seeks to interview each putative class member to determine what their actual job duties

were, whether they were provided with a seat, and if not, whether they suffered injury as a result of

having no seat, this case is the antithesis of a class action as it requires interviews of individual class

members to determine the circumstances of their situation. Id. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

alleged need for such expansive discovery demonstrates the individualized nature of her claims. Id.

at 4. Defendant further argues that the putative class members have a reasonable expectation of

privacy in their identities and contact information, and that it cannot release the contact information

without the express consent of the putative class members. Id. at 5. Finally, Defendant argues that

if the Court grants Plaintiff’s request and orders Defendant to produce information responsive to

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, the scope should be limited to those individuals who worked at the

same stores as Plaintiff during the relevant time period. Id.

A. Legal Standard

Prior to class certification under Rule 23, discovery lies entirely within the discretion of the

Court. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Our cases stand

for the unremarkable proposition that often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 6
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

certification and that some discovery will be warranted.”). The plaintiff has the burden to either

make a prima facie showing that the Rule 23 class action requirements are satisfied, or to show “that

discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” Manolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d

1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). 

A court must determine whether the action may be maintained as a class action as soon as is

practicable after the action is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1). Accordingly, discovery is likely

warranted where it will resolve factual issues necessary for the determination of whether the action

may be maintained as a class action, such as whether a class or set of subclasses exist. Kamm v.

California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). To deny discovery where it is

necessary to determine the existence of a class or set of subclasses would be an abuse of discretion. 

Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Kamm, 509

F.2d at 210). 

The disclosure of names, addresses, and telephone numbers is a common practice in the class

action context. See Babbit v. Albertson’s Inc., 1992 WL 605652, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1992) (at

pre-certification stage of Title VII class action, defendant employer ordered to disclose names,

addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers of current and past employees); see also

Putnam v. Eli Lilly & Co., 508 F.Supp.2d 812, 814 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (ordering production of the

names, addresses, and telephone numbers of putative class members, subject to a protective order,

including those who worked in a sales division other than the plaintiff’s own). 

B. Application to the Case at Bar

The Court finds that the case at bar is factually analogous to the Putnam case cited above, a

putative class action in which the court, at the pre-certification stage, was faced with the question of

whether to order disclosure of contact information for 348 employees of the defendant, both inside

and outside of the plaintiff’s sales division. Putnam, 508 F.Supp.2d at 813. As in this case, the

plaintiff in Putnam argued that the contact information of other employees was necessary in order

for the plaintiff to substantiate class allegations. Id. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not

entitled to the contact information of its employees in sales divisions other than the plaintiff’s

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

division, and even if the plaintiff were so entitled, those employees and putative class members had

a reasonable expectation of privacy in their contact information. Id. at 814. The court found that the

contact information of other employees of the defendant, especially those employees in sales

divisions other than the plaintiff, would be useful to the plaintiff in meeting the commonality and

typicality prongs of Rule 23. Id. The court further found that Plaintiff’s need for the information

outweighed the defendant’s privacy concerns for its employees, and that a protective order would be

sufficient to address those concerns. Id. 

Likewise, in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the contact information of

putative class members, both in the two stores where Plaintiff worked and at other stores throughout

the state. Plaintiff seeks this information in order to substantiate class allegations and to meet the

certification requirements under Rule 23. The contact information and subsequent contact with

potential class members is necessary to determine whether Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class,

and ultimately whether the action may be maintained as a class action. However, the Court agrees

with Defendant’s argument that production of contact information for over 9,000 individuals in over

500 stores would be burdensome at this early pre-certification stage. 

Some courts have limited pre-certification discovery of contact information to a

representative group. See Martinet v. Spherion Atlantic Enterprises, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

48113, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (limiting production of contact information for putative class

members to the office where the plaintiff worked, as the plaintiff sought information for 10,000-plus

employees encompassing many different job industries and many job positions unique from the

plaintiff’s); Acevedo v. Ace Coffee Bar, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 550, 556 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (production of

potential class members’ contact information limited to commissary employees, as the plaintiff had

not yet made a showing that all hourly employees were subject to challenged practices). 

Thus, while Defendant’s burdensomeness objections have merit, the Court finds that Plaintiff

is entitled to discovery of contact information for a representative number of putative class members

in order to substantiate her class allegations. However, the Court declines to limit production of

contact information to only the two stores where Plaintiff worked because, unlike the plaintiff in

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Martinet, the job duties of Defendant’s in-store employees are likely similar to Plaintiff’s. 

Accordingly, Defendant shall produce the contact information of putative class members for the two

stores in which Plaintiff worked, plus ten additional stores which Plaintiff shall select.

Additionally, the Court is aware of the protective order already in place in this matter, (Dkt.

#52), which should adequately address the privacy at issues here. However, in an abundance of

cation, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to draft any additions/modifications to the

protective order for the discovery at issue. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows. Defendant is ORDERED to disclose

to Plaintiff the contact information of putative class members for the two stores at which Plaintiff

worked, consistent with the language of Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2. (Joint Letter, Ex. 1, Dkt.

#59.) Additionally, Plaintiff shall select ten (10) of Defendant’s stores for which the contact

information of putative class members will be disclosed to her, consistent with the language of

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2. Id. Plaintiff and Defendant are ORDERED to meet and confer and

subsequently file a joint stipulation and proposed order memorializing their agreement regarding the

ten stores selected and the method for disclosure. Furthermore, the parties shall include in the joint

stipulation and proposed order any modifications they wish to make to the protective order already

in place in this matter. (Dkt. #52.) The parties are ORDERED to file the joint stipulation and

proposed order within fourteen days of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010

_______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 6 of 6