2013-00154815-CU-OE

Terry Tauchman vs. Outerwall, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Han, Douglas

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 is granted as follows:

This is a wage and hour putative class action case in which plaintiff seeks the contact
information of the putative class members, including the name, address, and
telephone numbers of the putative class members (1-3) as well as the number of
current and former putative class members (4-5). The Special Interrogatories sought
information about “Covered Employees” which was defined as “All current and former
non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked for Defendant within the State of
California as Coinstar Technicians during the Covered Period.” The motion further
defines “Coinstar Technicians,” to mean the persons who travel on a route to service
coin-counting kiosks. These persons apparently have many varied job titles.

Defendant objected on the ground the discovery was premature, vague, ambiguous,
and unintelligible, and unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive. Those
objections are overruled. The defendant also objected on the ground of third party
privacy of its current and former employees and contended that the information could
not be disclosed pursuant to a “Belaire-West” notice. (see, also Pioneer Electronics
(USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 40 Cal.4th 360.)

Plaintiff offered an opt-out procedure during the meet and confer process, however
plaintiff now seeks the information outright without an opt-out procedure such as that
set forth in Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554,
562. Some courts have held that a plaintiff in a wage and hour class action is entitled
to the names and contact information of all putative class members and percipient witnesses without necessarily undergoing an opt-out procedure. In Crab-Addison, Inc.
v Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 961, 974, the Court ordered that the
names and contact information be provided outright, without an opt-out procedure.

In employment law wage and hour class actions discovery of putative class members’
contact information is often permitted even in the face of privacy concerns. (See Lee
v. Dynamex, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1325 (allowing discovery of contact
information by use of interrogatories for putative class members in a misclassification
class action); Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360
(granting motion to compel employer to provide names and contact information of all
current and former employees after sending out an opt-out notice requiring an
objection within a certain amount of time.)). Disclosure of contact information in the
wage and hour context is permitted because employees [are] reasonably expected to
want their information disclosed to a class action plaintiff who may ultimately recover
for them unpaid wages that they are owed.” Id. at p. 561.

The proper balancing test requires the Court to consider three factors: (1) a legally
recognized reasonable expectation of privacy, (2) a serious invasion of privacy, and (3)
a balancing the opposing interests (public need for the information versus the weight of
the right infringed upon.) Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994) 7
Cal.4th 1, 39-40. Here, the court has weighed the interest in the privacy rights of the
current and former employees in the putative class and finds that the plaintiff’s interest
in the discovery outweighs the employee’s privacy rights to their contact information.
Contact information, including employees’ telephone numbers and addresses, is
frequently discoverable information from an employer. (See Puerto v. Superior Court
(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252) However, the Court is of the opinion that the
putative class members are entitled to the protection of an opt-out procedure.
Therefore, the Court is granting the motion subject to an opt-out procedure to be
administered by Simpluris, as indicated at page 10 in the moving papers.

Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Items 4-5 within 10 days of
receipt of the formal order.

Defendant is ordered to provide a further response to Items 1-3 within 10 days of
completion of the opt-out procedure pursuant to Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v
Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554.

Sanctions are denied on the ground that the defendant acted with reasonable
justification in asserting the current and former employees’ privacy rights.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to
C.R.C. 3.1312.