Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions (22nd Edition) 129 In cases reaching back to Atari v. Superior Court,750 California courts have recognized the principle that both sides in litigation should have equal access to potential class members, as they are often key witnesses. Plaintiffs typically seek names and addresses of potential class members in order to send them some sort of communication describing the plaintiffs’ case or to invite them to assist the plaintiffs’ counsel in investigating the claims asserted. Of course, a defendant employer has a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the personal information of its current and former employees. Courts must strike a balance between these interests. In 2003, the Court of Appeal weighed these considerations in Parris v. Superior Court.751 In Parris, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that they were misclassified as exempt employees.752 The plaintiffs moved to compel the disclosure of potential class member names and addresses, and for leave to communicate with potential class members. The trial court denied the motions. Parris held that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to free speech, which includes the right to communicate with potential class members.753 Requiring court approval of such communications would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on free speech.754 Therefore, Parris held that the trial court should have dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to communicate with the class because no such motion was required.755 Regarding the disclosure of potential class member names and addresses, the Parris court held that it was “appropriate for the court to consider ‘the possibility of abuses in class-action litigation’” in determining whether to order disclosure of potential class member information.756 Without expressing any opinion on the propriety of ordering disclosure in the case before it, Parris remanded the case to the trial court to make that determination. Although this decision plainly restricted a trial court’s ability to stop plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with class members once plaintiffs’ counsel located them, it did not address whether plaintiffs may typically obtain discovery of the putative class members’ names and personal contact information. The California Supreme Court directly addressed this issue, albeit within the consumer class action context, in Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court.757 The plaintiff in Pioneer filed a discovery motion seeking to compel the defendant to disclose the names and addresses of customers who complained about a defective DVD player. Ruling for the plaintiff, the Supreme Court instructed Pioneer to send a notice of the suit to all potential class members allowing them to object to the release of their names and contact information to the plaintiff. The defendant was directed to release the names of those who did not respond to the notice and affirmatively object to disclosure. 750 166 Cal. App. 3d 867 (1985). 751 109 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2003). 752 Id. at 290. 753 Id. at 296-99. 754 Id. 755 Id. at 299-300. 756 Id. at 300 (citing Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 104 (1981) and Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. Superior Court, 88 Cal. App. 4th 572, 580 (2001)). 757 40 Cal. 4th 360 (2007).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4