Nnebe v. Daus
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:06-cv-04991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nnebe v. Daus, Judge Sullivan denied reconsideration of phone-number discovery and ordered a conference about class notice.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs and defendants and concerned notice to the class members. The reconsideration motion was denied, but the parties were ordered to attend a conference about the adequacy of class notice.
What happened
In Nnebe v. Daus, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to require defendants to provide class members’ phone numbers. They said email and regular mail had not successfully reached many class members.
The court rejected the request because the plaintiffs had not previously presented the new information about unsuccessful email and mail communications. It also found no clear legal error in the earlier decision, noting that the parties had agreed to use email and mail and had already proceeded with that plan.
The court nevertheless ordered the parties to attend a conference about whether class notice was adequate and whether the notice and opt-out period might need to be reopened. Judge Sullivan denied the reconsideration motion and directed the clerk to terminate it.
The detailed version
- Nnebe v. Daus · No. 1:06-cv-04991
- Richard Sullivan
- Oct. 14, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of a September 27, 2022 order that had denied their request to require the defendants to produce the phone numbers of each class member. They argued that the information was relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which generally permits discovery of relevant, nonprivileged information.
The plaintiffs newly reported that thousands of mailing addresses were incorrect or outdated and that more than half of the emails sent to 9,000 class members had either not been opened or had bounced back. They argued that these problems supported obtaining phone numbers to communicate with class members about hearings concerning compensatory damages.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration. A party generally must identify controlling decisions or important facts the court overlooked, or show a clear legal error or the need to prevent manifest injustice. The court found that the plaintiffs had not previously presented the facts about the problems with email and regular mail, so those facts could not show that the court had overlooked them.
The court also found no clear legal error in its earlier ruling. It explained that the parties had agreed that class notice would be sent by email and regular mail; the court had ordered defendants to provide names, email addresses, and last known mailing addresses; and class counsel had distributed notice and submitted what appeared to be the final class list without raising concerns about the agreed communication methods. The court relied on Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which permits a court to limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or that the requesting party had ample opportunity to obtain.
Disposition
The court expressed concern that the new information called the adequacy of all class communications into question, not only communications about compensatory-damage hearings. It ordered the parties to appear for a conference on October 21, 2022, to discuss the adequacy of class notice and the possible need to reopen the class-notice and opt-out period. Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Document No. 557.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.