California has traditionally permitted a broad scope of
discovery under the theory that discovery allows parties to
ascertain the strength of their case prior to trial. Until
recently, the California Supreme Court had not considered the scope
of discovery in actions arising under California's Private
Attorneys General Act. Among other things, the Act has been used in
recent years by savvy plaintiffs' attorneys when bringing wage
and hour class actions.
In the recent California Supreme Court case of Williams v.
Superior Court (Marshalls of California, LLC), a
Marshall's employee brought an action under California's
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of
himself and other employees of the store, alleging various wage and
hour violations. During discovery, the employee plaintiff sought
the contact information–e.g. the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers–for all Marshalls employees
located in California. The lower court and the Court of Appeal both
held that the plaintiff could discover that information as to the
store where he worked, but could not obtain the information as to
other California stores unless and until he could factually support
statewide discovery.
In a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and
rejected each of the defendant's arguments that state-wide
discovery should be prohibited. The Court found that the
plaintiff's request was not overbroad, did not impose an undue
burden on the company, and did not invade the privacy rights of the
absent employees. The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of
privilege, the right to discovery is broad and will be construed
liberally so that parties may ascertain the strength of their case
and determine the truth of the matter at trial. The Court also
observed that "in non-PAGA class actions, the contact
information of those a plaintiff purports to represent is routinely
discoverable as an essential prerequisite to effectively seeking
group relief." As a result, the court extended broad discovery
rights to PAGA actions, holding that nothing in the inherent nature
of a PAGA suit, essentially a representative suit filed on behalf
of the state to assist it with enforcement of the labor laws,
afforded a basis for narrowing pretrial discovery.
This decision to extend broad discovery rights to PAGA suits may
have serious implications for California employers. The Court's
decision eliminates the need for employee plaintiffs to make a
threshold showing of good cause to support statewide discovery,
exposing employers to burdensome and expensive discovery
obligations at the outset of a potentially meritless case.
Employers involved in PAGA suits who are faced with discovery
requests to provide employee contact information should be prepared
to establish evidence demonstrating undue burden or invasion of
privacy. Better yet, employers should work closely with their legal
counsel to ensure that their workplace policies comply with the
myriad of employment laws in California to avoid a wage and hour
lawsuit at the outset.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
