Hazel v. Prudential Financial, Inc.

Background

The court addressed a discovery dispute concerning written discovery requests and depositions of plaintiffs Tyrone Hazel and Roxane Evans. Hazel and Evans were named plaintiffs in a putative class action. They were concurrently seeking to dismiss their claims voluntarily because they had received evidence from the defendants indicating that they were not class members.

The defendants nevertheless sought to depose Hazel and Evans and obtain responses to written discovery. The defendants argued that the two plaintiffs had information relevant to the litigation. Hazel and Evans moved for a protective order, which is an order limiting or preventing discovery, to stop their depositions and to ensure that they did not have to respond to the written discovery.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants relied on several district court decisions allowing discovery from named plaintiffs who sought to dismiss their claims. The court distinguished those decisions because the plaintiffs in those cases remained class members and had information about the substance of the claims based on their experiences with the defendants or the products involved.

Here, Hazel and Evans conceded that they were not class members. The court also stated that they had no dealings with the defendants’ products at issue in the case. Based on those facts, the court concluded that Hazel and Evans had no relevant information.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order. The opinion did not rule on Hazel and Evans’s separate request to voluntarily dismiss their claims. The order was signed by Sallie Kim, United States Magistrate Judge.