Miller v. Travel Guard Group, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-09751
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TAMIKA MILLER, et al., 7 Case No. 21-cv-09751-TLT (JCS) Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 9 LETTER TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 218 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiffs seek an order compelling objector Eric Alan Isaacson (“Objector” or “Isaacson”) 14 to appear for an in-person deposition of up to 3.5 hours on March 18, 2025 in La Jolla, California, 15 where Isaacson resides. Isaacson’s counsel has informed Plaintiffs that the deposition notice is 16 invalid and that he intends to seek a protective order in the Southern District of California 17 excusing Isaacson from attending the deposition. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request. 18 “Plaintiffs may seek information from objectors to obtain relevant, needed, and reasonably 19 narrowly tailored information regarding each objector’s standing as a settlement class member to 20 assert objections, the underlying basis for his objections, and his relationship with counsel that 21 may be pertinent to informing the court about the nature and merits of the appeal.” In re Netflix 22 Priv. Litig., No. 5:11-CV-00379-EJD, 2013 WL 6173772, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (citing 23 In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 281 F.R.D. 531, 532-533 (N.D. Cal. 2012)). 24 Plaintiffs here contend Isaacson has raised “virtually the same objections” to a class settlement 25 involving a competitor of the defendant in this case and that the court rejected all of those 26 objections. Joint Letter at 1 (citing Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., No. 20-cv-06304-JST, 2024 U.S. 27 Dist. LEXIS 196527, at *23-26) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2024)). They also contend Isaacson, along 1 wherein they take turns representing each other on class action objections.” /d. (citing cases). 2 || Finally, they point to Isaacson’s rejection of the appeal bond amount proposed by Plaintiffs, 3 indicating that there may be a dispute about the appropriate amount of the bond. Therefore, 4 || Plaintiffs have made a showing sufficient to justify the short deposition of Isaacson they seek 5 addressing his relationship with his counsel, prior objections, and standing in this case. 6 The Court rejects Objector’s argument that because the case is now on appeal to the Ninth 7 Circuit, this court is divested of jurisdiction to compel his deposition. Joint Letter at 3-4 (citing 8 Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). As Objector recognizes, 9 Griggs held that a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the 10 district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” 459 U.S. at 58 11 (emphasis added). While a notice of appeal is “jurisdictional” to the extent it gives the court of 12 appeals jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over 13 aspects of the case not involved in the appeal. Thus, this court and others in this district have ruled 14 || on discovery disputes such as this one even after a notice of appeal has been filed. See, e.g., Senne 3 15 v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., No. 14-CV-00608-JCS, 2023 WL 3884634, at *1 (N.D. a 16 || Cal. June 7, 2023); In re Netflix Priv. Litig., No. 5:11-CV-00379-EJD, 2013 WL 6173772, at *5 17 || (ND. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013), 18 For these reasons, Isaacson is ORDERED to appear for an in-person deposition of no 19 more than 3.5 hours on the record on March 18, 2025 in La Jolla, California to address his 20 || relationship with his counsel, prior objections, and standing in this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: February 5, 2025 24 LZ € LEE J PH C. SPERO 25 nited States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28