©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2025 Cal-Peculiarities | 153 396 Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 19 Cal. App. 5th 630 (2018). 397 Id. at 641. 398 Id. at 647. 399 Id. at 650-51. 400 McCleery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 37 Cal. App. 5th 434, 448 (2019) (affirming trial court’s conclusion that “plaintiffs’ proposed class action would not be superior to individual actions because their survey failed to address ‘all of the information needed for an accurate determination of liability,’ and the trial plan ‘deprive[d] defendants of the right of cross-examination and the ability to present their affirmative defenses”). 401 Id. at 453 (“plaintiffs expressly admit they intend to answer the ultimate question in this case based solely on expert testimony—testimony founded on multiple hearsay that defendants could never challenge.”). 402 Id. (quoting Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc., 2 Cal. App. 4th 1516, 1525 (1992)). 403 McCleery, 37 Cal. App. 5th at 453 (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397, U.S. 254, 269-70 (1970)). 404 In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[respondent] contends that the information sought in discovery was relevant to class certification issues. … That does not undercut, or water down, the primary point that using discovery to find a client to be the named plaintiff before a class action is certified is not within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).”) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 353 (1978)). 405 In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d at 540. The case involved a suit for misleading statements as to the thread count on bedding, but its general principles apply to an employment case. Williams-Sonoma has uncertain breadth, however, and may be limited to a case where the plaintiff’s discovery request is solely to find a new class representative. See Arredondo v. Sw. & Pac. Specialty Fin., Inc., 2019 WL 6128657, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019) (“[D]istrict courts in th[e] [Ninth] Circuit have often found that as a general rule, before class certification has taken place, all parties are entitled to equal access to persons who potentially have an interest in or relevant knowledge of the subject of the action, but who are not yet parties. For that reason, discovery of the putative class members’ contact information is routinely allowed.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Martin v. Sysco Corp., 2017 WL 4517819, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) (“Disclosure of contact information for putative class members is a common practice in the class action context.”) (citing Artis v. Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2011)). 406 CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (Cole), 159 Cal. App. 4th 273, 290-91 (2008) (“We conclude the Parris balancing test should be applied by trial courts in exercising their discretion whether to grant or deny an original plaintiff’s precertification motion for discovery of the identities of class members regardless of whether that original plaintiff had standing at the beginning of the action.”) (citing Parris v. Superior Ct., 109 Cal. App. 4th 285, 300-01 (2003)). 407 The named plaintiffs, debtors of the defendant, were suing for surreptitious telephone monitoring but discovered that they themselves were never monitored; only others were. CashCall, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th at 279. 408 Id. at 292-93. For discussion of how California favors the interests of class actions, as represented by plaintiffs’ lawyers, over the privacy interests of employees, see § 4.10. 409 Lab. Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(A); Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc., 80 Cal. App. 5th 782, 792 (2022), review denied (Oct. 12, 2022) (“[A] PAGA action is subject to a one-year statute of limitations.”) (quoting Hutcheson v. Superior Ct., 74 Cal. App. 5th 932, 939 (2022)). 410 Lab. Code § 2699.3(a)(2)(A). 411 This has since changed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15, 2022, ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1924 (2022), wherein the Court held that employers are entitled to enforce arbitration agreements insofar as they mandate arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim. The California Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of arbitrating individual PAGA claims in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023). 412 State of California Department of Industrial Resources, Private Attorneys General Action (PAGA) Case Search, https://cadir.my.salesforcesites.com/PagaSearch (last visited March 22, 2025). 413 Id. 414 Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 60 Cal. App. 5th 1069, 1076 (2021). 415 Lab. Code §§ 2698-2699.8. 416 PAGA establishes civil penalties for all Labor Code provisions “except those for which a civil penalty is specifically provided.” Lab. Code § 2699(f). 417 An “aggrieved employee” is one whom the alleged violator employed and against whom an alleged violation was committed. Lab. Code § 2699(c). 418 As originally enacted, PAGA split the money collected three ways: 50% to the California General Fund, 25% to the LWDA, and 25% to the aggrieved workers. As amended in 2004, PAGA sent the State’s 75% portion to the LWDA for labor law enforcement and education. Lab. Code § 2699(i). As amended in 2024, the State’s portion was reduced to 65%. Lab. Code § 2699(m) and the aggrieved employees’ share was increased to 35%. Section 2699 does not affect exclusive remedies for workers’ compensation injuries. Lab. Code § 2699(k). 419 Lab. Code § 2699(g)(1). 420 Lab. Code § 2699(h). 421 Arias v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009) (quoting People v. Pac. Land Rsch. Co., 20 Cal. 3d 10, 17 (1977)). 422 Lab. Code § 2699(f)(2). See also discussion below regarding the changes made by the 2024 reforms to the $200 penalty provision. 423 Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1157, 1209 (2008). Citing Amaral, a federal district court stated: “California law is clear that a subsequent violation level applies only to violations after the employer is on notice that its continued conduct is unlawful. Until
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4