Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.

Background

This order addresses a continuing dispute over notice and employee contact information in a certified class action. California law generally requires balancing potential class members’ privacy interests against the plaintiffs’ need for discovery. The parties had previously notified potential class members that they could opt out of sharing contact information with class counsel. Some current or former PNC employees did so, and some of those employees also opted out of the class.

In an earlier order, the court held that class counsel could not receive contact information from employees who had declined to provide it until after the class opt-out deadline. After that deadline, PNC was required to provide information for employees who had initially declined disclosure but remained in the class. The parties continued to disagree about the information that should be provided and whether contact information on opt-out forms should be redacted.

Ruling

The court held that class counsel generally is not entitled to contact information for employees who both opted out of sharing their information and opted out of the class. The court would not disregard those employees’ stated preferences absent an indication that they possessed relevant information that was not duplicative of information available from other sources.

The court agreed with PNC that contact information on opt-out forms for employees who had previously objected to sharing their information must be redacted before the forms were provided to class counsel. The court stated that it would issue PNC’s proposed order concerning class notice.

The court also emphasized that these privacy protections did not relieve PNC of its obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i) and Rule 26(e). If PNC believed that a current or former employee likely had relevant and non-cumulative information, PNC had to disclose that employee’s name and contact information to class counsel, even if the employee had declined disclosure and opted out of the class. That disclosure was required before PNC interviewed the employee about the case or sought a declaration, but the obligation was not limited to those situations. Plaintiffs could request contact information if they had a particularized reason to believe that an employee who opted out of both disclosure and the class had relevant, non-cumulative information that plaintiffs could not obtain from another source.

Effect of the Order

The order protected the stated privacy choices of employees who opted out of both contact-information disclosure and the class, while preserving reciprocal discovery of potential witnesses with relevant information. Judge Joseph C. Spero also noted that PNC had previously violated its disclosure duty by submitting employee declarations without first identifying those employees as potential witnesses.