Scheafer v. Target Corp.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BYRON SCHAEFER, No. 2:24-cv-00651-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE 14 TARGET CORPORATION, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Introduction 18 The parties presented this dispute to the Court pursuant to the undersigned’s informal 19 discovery dispute process. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff seeks the contact information for all witnesses 20 identified in Defendant Target Corporation’s (“Target”) initial disclosures and for all individuals 21 responsive to an interrogatory Plaintiff served on Target. Defendant resists such disclosures. The 22 Court discussed this dispute with the parties during an informal telephonic hearing on December 23 5, 2024. At the Court’s direction, the parties submitted their meet and confer correspondence in 24 camera, to assist the Court in resolving this dispute. Having now reviewed that correspondence 25 and further considered the issues, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested contact 26 information. 27 Analysis 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) requires a party to disclose “the name and, if 1 known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable 2 information . . . that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use 3 would be solely for impeachment[.]” In addition to this initial disclosure requirement, litigants 4 often seek and obtain contact information of other potential witnesses through interrogatories. 5 See United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California, 2024 WL 4002844, at *7- 6 8 (C.D. Cal.) (requiring the disclosure in response to an interrogatory of the “identity of 7 individuals with discoverable information about” an issue in the case because the “contact 8 information for such individuals is properly discoverable”). Target nevertheless argues that 9 Plaintiff is not entitled to the contact information of certain of its employees at the “Team 10 Leader” level and above. Target’s argument is based on two principles: (1) the employees at the 11 “Team Leader” level and above are “managers” who should not be contacted ex parte, and (2) 12 Target’s employees have a privacy interest in their contact information. 13 During the informal discovery conference, Plaintiff’s counsel recognized her ethical 14 obligation not to contact ex parte witnesses who are represented or who could make vicarious 15 admissions. However, Target’s counsel does not claim to represent the individuals whose contact 16 information Plaintiff seeks. Moreover, given the management structure the parties described to 17 the Court, it is unlikely that Target would be bound the admissions of those individuals. See Hill 18 v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that statements made by mid-level 19 managers who were not involved in decision to discharge plaintiff were not vicarious admissions 20 by employer). 21 As for Target’s privacy argument, it is true that California’s state law privacy protections 22 apply in a diversity case like this one, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 501. See Hill v. 23 Eddie Bauer, 242 F.R.D. 556, 562 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Under state law, all Californians have a 24 conditional privacy interest in their contact information. See Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 25 5th 531, 552-53 (2017). However, the contact information at issue here can be produced subject 26 to a protective order, thus adequately protecting the privacy interests of the handful of employees 27 whose information would be subject to disclosure. See, e.g., Holland-Hewitt v. Allstate Life Ins. 28 Co., 343 F.R.D. 154, 176 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (“[G]iven the presence of the protective order, the 1 | Court does not find the privacy concerns outweigh the discoverability of the absent member 2 || contact information.”). 3 Conclusion 4 For the foregoing reasons, and subject to the following conditions, Target is ORDERED 5 || to produce contact information for the individuals identified in its initial disclosures and the 6 || individuals identified in response to Plaintiffs interrogatory. Target may mark this information 7 || confidential under the protective order entered in this action. To the extent an individual is 8 || represented by counsel for Target, Target may so indicate in its production. To the extent Target 9 || has a bona fide belief that an individual could make a vicarious admission, Target may so 10 || indicate. For individuals who are represented by counsel for Target or who Target believes could 11 | make a vicarious admission, Plaintiff's counsel shall not contact them ex parte. Counsel for 12 | Target may nonetheless offer to accept service of a deposition notice or subpoena on behalf of 13 | any individual identified in its initial disclosures or in response to Plaintiff's interrogatory. 14 | Dated: December 9, 2024 md 16 SEAN C. RIORDAN 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28