Daily Blast July 14, 2017

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court extended discovery in representative actions brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), to be as broad as class action discovery. (Slip opn., p. 2.) In Williams v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (July 13, 2017, S227228) ___ Cal.5th ___, the Supreme Court held statewide discovery of employee contact information is permitted in a PAGA action. The Supreme Court also provided a helpful and detailed analysis of the objections raised that would be of interest to all trial attorneys.

Plaintiff sued his employer, Marshalls of CA, LLC (“Marshalls”) under PAGA for failure to provide plaintiff and other aggrieved employees meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu of the required breaks. (Slip opn., p. 2.) During discovery, plaintiff sought contact information for fellow California employees. Marshalls refused. (Id. at p. 3.) Plaintiff moved to compel the information. The trial court ordered Marshalls to provide employee contact information, but only for the store where plaintiff worked, subject to a Belaire-West notice designed to ensure protection of third party privacy rights and an equal sharing of costs by the parties. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff sought writ relief from the court’s order, which the Court of Appeal denied. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve issues of first impression concerning the appropriate scope of discovery in a PAGA action. (Id. at p. 4.)

The Supreme Court held Marshall’s objection that the discovery is permissible because the complaint alleges statewide systematic company-wide policies in violation of the Labor Code. (Slip opn., pp. 8, 17.) In comparing a PAGA action to a class action, the court noted that “n a class action, fellow class members are potential percipient witnesses to alleged illegalities, and it is on that basis their contact information becomes relevant.” (Id. at p. 15 citations omitted.) “Likewise, in a PAGA action, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish any violations of the Labor Code, and a complaint that alleges such violations makes any employee allegedly aggrieved a percipient witness and his or her contact information relevant and discoverable.” (Id. at p. 15.) Thus, the Supreme Court held that nothing in the characteristics of a PAGA suit affords a basis for restricting discovery more narrowly. (Id. at p. 2.) As such, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. (Id. at p. 33.)