Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

therefore the trial court acted within its discretion when it granted the defendant’s motion to
deny class certification rather than wait for the plaintiffs to file a motion for certification. 424
XV.
Discovery Issues in Class Actions
A. Disclosure of Class Member Names and Addresses to Allow
Access to Potential Witnesses
An ongoing dispute in Labor Code class actions revolves around the disclosure of the
names, addresses, and telephone numbers for potential class members prior to class
certification. Plaintiffs typically argue they need this information to assist them in
prosecuting their case, and to alleviate any inherent advantage the defendant has in
contacting potential class members. In cases reaching back to Atari v. Superior Court, 425
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 Second District Court of Appeal weighed these considerations in Parris v.
Superior Court. 426
In Parris, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that they were
misclassified as exempt employees. 427
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.
The appellate court held that plaintiffs have a constitutional right to free speech, which
includes the right to communicate with potential class members. 428
Requiring court
approval of such communications would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on free
424
425
426
427
428
BCBG, 163 Cal. App. 4th at 262-63.
166 Cal. App. 3d 867 (1985).
109 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2003).
Id. at 290.
Id. at 296-99.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 94