In In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2020), the named plaintiff, a Kentucky resident, sued Williams-Sonoma under California law for false advertising. After the district court determined that Kentucky law applied to his claims, he propounded discovery seeking a list of all California consumers who had purchased the product in question during the relevant time period. The district court ordered Williams-Sonoma to respond. Id. at 538-39.
On a 2-1 vote, the Ninth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to vacate that order, holding that it represented a "clear error" of law. Id. at 539-40. The discovery, "seeking ... the name of a class member (here an unknown person, who could sue Williams-Sonoma)," was not "relevant to the subject matter involved in the action" within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). Id. at 539 (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-53 (1978)).
In dissent, Judge Paez explained that the majority had misconstrued Oppenheimer, which "did not hold" that plaintiffs may never "seek the identities and contact information of absent class members ... before the class is certified." Id. at 541. Moreover, even if Rule 26 did not permit the discovery, Rule 23 was broad enough to authorize the district court's order. Id. The dissenting opinion concludes:
The district court thus acted well within its authority by facilitating class counsel’s attempts to communicate with absent class members and to notify them of important developments in the lawsuit. Because the district court’s order was a “matter ... committed to discretion, it cannot be said that [Williams-Sonoma’s] right to a particular result is clear and indisputable.” See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). I would thus deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. I respectfully dissent.
Id. at 543.
Comments