LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

L a k e M e r r i t t P l a z a

1 9 9 9 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t , S u i t e 2 6 0 0

O a k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 - 3 5 4 1

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

31208-45806 AOFFILLKLEIN 686010.1 1

[PROP.] ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF 

CUSTOMER CONTACT INFORMATION

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

MATTHEW S. CONANT, SBN 94920

msc@llcllp.com

MARIA M. LAMPASONA, SBN 259675

mlampasona@llcllp.com

ALEXEI N. OFFILL-KLEIN, SBN 288448

aoffillklein@llcllp.com

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600

Oakland, CA 94612-3541

Telephone: (510) 433-2600

Facsimile: (510) 433-2699

Attorneys for Defendants FORTY NINERS 

FOOTBALL COMPANY LLC, FORTY NINERS 

SC STADIUM COMPANY LLC, FORTY 

NINERS STADIUM MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY LLC, CITY OF SANTA CLARA 

and SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABDUL NEVAREZ and PRISCILLA 

NEVAREZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL 

COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company; FORTY NINERS SC 

STADIUM COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; NATIONAL 

FOOTBALL LEAGUE; CITY OF 

SANTA CLARA; SANTA CLARA 

STADIUM AUTHORITY; 

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT, 

INC.; FORTY NINERS STADIUM 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC; and 

DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-07013-LHK

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF 

CUSTOMER CONTACT INFORMATION

Hon. Susan van Keulen

Ctrm: 6

Trial: April 22, 2019

/ / /

/ / /

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 108-8 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 3
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

L a k e M e r r i t t P l a z a

1 9 9 9 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t , S u i t e 2 6 0 0

O a k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 - 3 5 4 1

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

31208-45806 AOFFILLKLEIN 686010.1 2

[PROP.] ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF 

CUSTOMER CONTACT INFORMATION

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

ORDER

At issue is a discovery dispute between the parties regarding the form of notice to be 

provided to defendants’ customers regarding the present lawsuit. This a putative class action 

brought on behalf of persons with mobility disabilities and their companions regarding Levi’s 

Stadium (“Stadium”) and its related parking facilities alleging violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs contend that an 

“opt-out” notice provides these individuals with sufficient protections against any intrusion on 

these persons’ right to privacy. Defendants contend that, in light of the fact that the customer list 

in question is a list of all individuals who have purchased accessible seating since the Stadium 

opened in 2014, disclosing this list of individuals effectively discloses their medical 

condition/status as individuals with disabilities, which courts have long held implicates serious 

privacy concerns. Further, because the list is not limited to individuals with mobility disabilities, 

defendants contend that providing notice to these individuals will entail questioning them about 

their respective disabilities. 

While the disclosure contemplated is, on the surface, limited to contact information, the 

effect of this disclosure, under these circumstances, implicates more serious privacy interests than 

the disclosure of the contact information of individuals who had already complained about faulty

DVD players (as in Pioneer Electronics), or who were defendant’s employees (as in BelaireWest). In addition, this is pre-class certification discovery, and plaintiffs have not sufficiently 

demonstrated how obtaining this discovery is necessary to prepare for their class certification 

motion. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the most appropriate way to balance the competing 

interests is to require that these individuals provide their affirmative consent before their contact 

information will be released to plaintiffs’ counsel. Because plaintiffs claim this discovery is 

necessary to prepare for class certification, and because it would be unjust to force defendants to 

contribute toward the disclosure of defendants’ customers’ contact information and the cost of 

sending notice to these individuals where the primary purpose of the discovery is to increase 

attorney’s fees, the Court orders plaintiffs to bear the cost of sending notices to these individuals. 

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 108-8 Filed 12/14/17 Page 2 of 3
LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

L a k e M e r r i t t P l a z a

1 9 9 9 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t , S u i t e 2 6 0 0

O a k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 - 3 5 4 1

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

31208-45806 AOFFILLKLEIN 686010.1 3

[PROP.] ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF 

CUSTOMER CONTACT INFORMATION

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-07013-LHK

See generally Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 358 (1978); Boeynaems v. LA 

Fitness Int'l, LLC, 285 F.R.D. 331, 334-41 (E.D. Pa. 2012). The Court further orders the parties 

to meet and confer on the substance of the notice, in accordance with the rulings set forth in this 

order. Notice is to be sent by a neutral administrator of the parties’ choice. 

Dated:

___________________________________

 The Hon. Susan van Keulen

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 108-8 Filed 12/14/17 Page 3 of 3