Andersen v. Papa, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-06326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Andersen v. Papa, Inc., Judge Illman partly granted and partly denied plaintiffs’ discovery request, ordering contact information but denying policy-document production.
The plaintiffs, Papa, Inc., and California-based Pals whose contact information the court ordered produced for the PAGA claim were affected. The ruling also addressed information relevant to the proposed class-certification effort.
What happened
In Andersen v. Papa, Inc., plaintiffs in a wage-and-hour case sought information from Papa, Inc. to support a proposed class action and a representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. They requested contact information for California-based “Pals,” a category of the defendant’s employees, and additional policy documents.
The court found that plaintiffs had not adequately addressed the defendant’s position that responsive policy documents had already been produced, so it denied that part of the request. The court also found that the information already provided for more than 250 California putative class members appeared sufficient for plaintiffs’ class-certification efforts.
Judge Illman granted plaintiffs’ request for contact information for all California-based Pals for purposes of the Private Attorneys General Act claim, but granted the discovery request only in part and denied it in part overall. The court did not decide the validity or applicability of the arbitration agreements discussed by the defendant.
The detailed version
- Andersen v. Papa, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-06326
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
This was a discovery dispute in a wage-and-hour case brought as a proposed class action and under California Labor Code section 2698 et seq., known as the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Plaintiffs sought contact information for California-based “Pals,” a category of the defendant’s employees, and additional policy documents.
The parties also told the court that the defendant had provided information for more than 250 California putative class members who had not opted out, along with information for more than 2,000 putative class members nationwide. The court found it unclear what additional class information plaintiffs wanted or why they needed more information before seeking class certification. It concluded that the information already provided appeared sufficient for that effort.
Ruling
The court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel additional production of policy documents. Plaintiffs had not adequately addressed the defendant’s statement that it was unaware of any specific responsive policy records that had not already been produced, and plaintiffs did not raise that issue at oral argument.
The court granted plaintiffs’ request for contact information for all California-based Pals in connection with the PAGA claim. It found plaintiffs’ argument that PAGA required a more complete list more persuasive than the defendant’s arguments. The court relied on California authority stating that access to employee contact information supports effective enforcement of state labor laws.
The defendant argued that most California Pals had signed arbitration agreements containing class- and collective-action waivers. The court stated that this issue was for another day because not all California Pals had signed such agreements, and the validity and applicability of the agreements might later be litigated. The court therefore did not resolve the arbitration issue in this discovery order.
Disposition
Plaintiffs’ request to compel was granted in part and denied in part: the request for contact information for all California-based Pals was granted, while the request for further production of policy documents was denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.