Ramirez v. Trusper, Inc.

Background

Elia Ramirez brought a class action against Trusper, Inc., doing business as Musely. The complaint alleges that Musely allowed Meta to intercept patients’ healthcare data in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the California Constitution’s privacy provision.

Trusper filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Ramirez agreed to an arbitration provision in the terms and conditions when she purchased a prescription online. Ramirez disputed that she entered into a valid arbitration agreement and requested early discovery to support her opposition to that motion. She identified possible questions about the functionality of website hyperlinks on the relevant dates and alternative ways to purchase products, but she did not specify the particular information she sought.

Legal standard

The Federal Arbitration Act provides a procedure for resolving a dispute about whether an arbitration agreement was formed. Under the process described by the court, a motion to compel arbitration is considered first; optional discovery may follow if necessary, and a trial may occur if factual disputes remain.

A court may authorize discovery before the parties’ usual discovery-planning conference when appropriate. Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally require a showing of “good cause,” meaning that the need for expedited discovery, considering the administration of justice, outweighs prejudice to the responding party.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Ramirez had not shown good cause for early discovery. First, she did not explain what information she needed or why it was necessary to oppose the motion to compel arbitration. The court said her arguments about weaknesses in Trusper’s evidence could be raised in her opposition, but those arguments did not establish why discovery was needed immediately.

Second, the court had not yet received the parties’ briefing on the underlying motion to compel arbitration. After that briefing, Ramirez might be able to identify specific discovery needed to resolve factual disputes, and Trusper would have an opportunity to respond. The court therefore lacked a complete picture of the factual disputes, particularly because Ramirez’s current request was vague.

Third, the court concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act’s procedure permits discovery, if necessary, after the court has heard the motion to compel arbitration. Ramirez did not persuade the court that departing from that procedure was necessary.

Disposition

The court denied Ramirez’s request for discovery at this time. It stated that Ramirez may raise the request again in her opposition to Trusper’s motion to compel arbitration if necessary. The opinion did not decide whether Ramirez and Trusper formed a valid arbitration agreement or whether arbitration must occur.