Eacret v. Crunch, LLC

Background

The plaintiffs filed a discovery dispute seeking to require Crunch to immediately send contact information for putative class members to a third-party administrator. The administrator would use the information to send notices under the procedure described in Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court. The court had previously ordered that procedure because the requested information included telephone numbers and other contact information, and because the case involved privacy concerns, including the possibility that people would receive communications from lawyers in multiple overlapping lawsuits. The plaintiffs also sought contact information linked to wage data such as overtime pay.

The court had entered the earlier discovery order on October 30, 2020. The plaintiffs later filed a discovery letter brief without following the court’s required process. After the court directed the parties to meet and confer, they jointly filed a letter brief. The plaintiffs again asked the court to require immediate production of the contact information.

Parties’ positions and related proceedings

Crunch argued that the class and representative claims in this case had been settled in a related case in Sacramento Superior Court, where the settlement had received preliminary approval on January 28, 2021. The opinion states that the plaintiffs had been allowed to intervene in that related case and that the plaintiffs acknowledged the settlement would operate to dispose of the claims and parties in this case as well. Crunch also argued that continuing discovery would be duplicative and unnecessary and could cause confusion because putative class members would receive settlement notices in the related case and potentially conflicting notices under the procedure in this case.

The opinion states that Crunch had filed a motion to stay this case, which was pending before Judge Tigar. At the hearing, the plaintiffs’ counsel said that pausing discovery could allow the case to end if the settlement in the related case received final approval. The court found that the desire to move the case forward, including counsel’s stated concern about attorneys’ fees, did not justify the confusion that could result from overlapping notices concerning the same claims and class.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman denied the plaintiffs’ request to compel Crunch to send the putative class members’ contact information to the notice administrator within two days. The court also stayed the pertinent portion of its prior discovery order concerning the notice process until after Judge Tigar resolves Crunch’s pending motion to stay the proceedings. This order addressed discovery and the timing of notices; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the underlying claims.