Lorenzo v. Dee Mark Inc.

Background

Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants jointly requested a pre-motion conference concerning discovery disputes. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants had refused to provide discovery concerning potential class members, even though the plaintiff had brought class claims and the record allegedly showed payroll violations. The plaintiff proposed sampling records that would primarily be stored electronically, including payroll records, earning statements, paystubs, wage notices, and handbooks.

The plaintiff relied on decisions concerning discovery before class or collective-action certification. The defendants disagreed with the plaintiff’s reading of those decisions and argued that broad discovery should not be allowed before certification. They emphasized decisions that denied or limited requests for potential class members’ contact information at that stage and urged the court to balance the usefulness of discovery against the burden on the defendants.

Court’s ruling

The court stated that plaintiffs are entitled to non-burdensome discovery concerning commonality, typicality, and numerosity—the requirements involving shared issues, similarity between the named plaintiff’s claims and the proposed class’s claims, and the size of the proposed class. The court indicated that electronic payroll records could likely be provided through sampling or by removing personal identifying information, including names. It identified information such as job title, salary, wage or earning statements, and relevant handbooks as potentially relevant to class-certification standards.

The court explained that the cases cited by the defendants were consistent with its ruling because those cases concluded that plaintiffs’ attorneys were not entitled to the identities and contact information of potential class members. The court directed the parties to confer again by telephone or in person. If they could not reach agreement about the production, the court permitted a new letter addressing the remaining dispute and complying with the court’s individual practices.

Disposition

The opinion does not state that a motion was granted or denied. It resolves the discovery dispute by recognizing an entitlement to non-burdensome class-certification discovery, excluding identities and contact information at this stage, and directing further discussion between the parties. The signature identifies the issuing judge as a United States Magistrate Judge, but the judge’s name is not legible in the provided opinion text.