In Lee v. Dynamex, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Aug. 26, 2008; pub. ord. Sept. 17, 2008), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) reversed an order denying class certification because the trial court had refused to permit discovery of class member contact information under Pioneer Electronics:
The trial court was plainly disturbed by Lee’s failure to produce additional evidence to support a finding of community of interest among potential class members in terms of the predominance of common questions of law or fact, the typicality of Lee’s claims or the adequacy of his representation as the sole named plaintiff. Ordinarily, we would defer to a trial court’s exercise of discretion on these issues; but, in light of the trial court’s discovery order precluding identification of potential class members before certification, we conclude Lee was not provided with an adequate opportunity to meet his burden and, therefore, reverse the denial of the class certification motion with directions to permit discovery to proceed and then to conduct a new class certification hearing.
Slip op. at 11. The opinion also contains an interesting discussion of the "ascertainability" prong of certification. Id. at 7-10.
UPDATE: The Complex Litigator has a more detailed post on Lee.