California Supreme Court
Trial Court Erred by Relying on Privacy Rights to Limit PAGA Representative’s Discovery of Co-Worker Contact Information to Worksite and by Conditioning Renewal of Motion on Showing that Representative’s Wage and Hour Rights Had Been ViolatedWILLIAMS v. SUPERIOR COURT
The California Supreme Court held that a party seeking discovery of private information need not always establish a compelling interest or compelling need; disapproving Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court, 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 799, Life Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 80, Binder v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.3d 893, 242 Cal.Rptr. 231, Kahn v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.3d 752, 233 Cal.Rptr. 662, Moskowitz v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 187 Cal.Rptr. 4, Board of Trustees v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 174 Cal.Rptr. 160, and Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Gherardini, 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 156 Cal.Rptr. 55.
“This is a representative action seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees statewide for alleged wage and hour violations. (See Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq., the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, hereafter PAGA.) In the course of discovery, plaintiff Michael Williams sought contact information for fellow California employees. When the defendant employer, Marshalls of CA, LLC, resisted, Williams filed a motion to compel. The trial court granted the motion as to the store where Williams worked, but denied it as to every other California store, conditioning any renewed motion for discovery on Williams sitting for a deposition and showing some merit to the underlying action. Williams petitioned the Court of Appeal to compel
In the absence of privilege, the right to discovery in this state is a broad one, to be construed liberally so that parties may ascertain the strength of their case and at trial the truth may be determined. Our prior decisions and those of the Courts of Appeal firmly establish that in non-PAGA class actions, the contact information of those a plaintiff purports to represent is routinely discoverable as an essential prerequisite to effectively seeking group relief, without any requirement that the plaintiff first show good cause. Nothing in the characteristics of a PAGA suit, essentially a qui tam action filed on behalf of the state to assist it with labor law enforcement, affords a basis for restricting discovery more narrowly. Nor, on this record, do other objections interposed in the trial court support the trial court’s order. We reverse.”
Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas, Ryan Wu, Robert Drexler, Stan Karas and Liana Carter, Los Angeles, for Petitioner.
Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Michael D. Singer, San Diego, for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Cynthia Rice, Oakland, for California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center and National Employment Law Project as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
The Turley Law Firm, William Turley, David T. Mara and Jamie Serb, San Diego, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Littler Mendelson, Robert G. Hulteng, San Francisco, Amy Todd-Gher, Kyle W. Nageotte, San Diego, Joshua J. Cliffe, Emily E. O’Connor, San Francisco, and Scott D. Helsinger for Real Party in Interest.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Phil Goldberg, Christopher E. Appel and Patrick Gregory for National Association of Manufacturers, American Coatings Association and NFIB Small Business Legal Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Call & Jensen, Julie R. Trotter, Newport Beach, Jamin S. Soderstrom and Delavan J. Dickson, San Diego, for Retail Litigation Center, Inc., California Retailers Association and California Grocers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Jackson Lewis, Lisa Barnett Sween, San Francisco, Natalja M. Fulton, Dylan B. Carp and Douglas G.A. Johnston, San Francisco, for Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Pahl & McCay, Stephen D. Pahl, Karen Kubala McCay, San Jose, and Julie Bonnel-Rogers, Irvine, for California Apartment Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
O’Melveny & Myers, Apalla U. Chopra, Los Angeles, Adam J. Karr, Ryan W. Rutledge, Newport Beach, Andrew Lichtenstein and Christina N. Pacudan, Los Angeles, for The Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Haynes and Boone, Mary-Christine Sungaila and Martin M. Ellison, Costa Mesa, for International Association of Defense Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Cal., 7/3/17 unanimous opinion by Werdegar; ___ P.3d ___, 3 Cal.5th 531, 2017 WL 2980258, 27 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 687, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6837, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6879.
Read More