(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531
Supreme Court of California · Decided July 13, 2017
01. Facts
Michael Williams worked for Marshalls of CA at its Costa Mesa store beginning in January 2012 (3 Cal.5th at p. 537). In 2013 he sued Marshalls under PAGA, alleging it failed to provide meal and rest periods (or premium pay) to him and other aggrieved employees statewide (id. at pp. 537–538). In discovery, Williams sought the names and contact information of other Marshalls nonexempt employees throughout California, and Marshalls resisted (id. at p. 538).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court held Williams was presumptively entitled to the statewide contact information, reversing the discovery limits imposed below (3 Cal.5th at p. 537).
03. Issue
Whether a PAGA plaintiff is entitled in discovery to the names and contact information of other allegedly aggrieved employees statewide, and what showing (if any) is required before such discovery is allowed.
Holding
A PAGA plaintiff is presumptively entitled to discover the identities and contact information of other aggrieved employees statewide, subject to the employees’ privacy interests (which may be protected through a Belaire-West opt-out notice) rather than to a heightened threshold showing of merit before discovery.
05. Reasoning
The court reasoned that contact information of percipient witnesses is routinely discoverable and is essential to a representative PAGA action, which by design seeks to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of employees statewide. Requiring a plaintiff to prove the merits or establish a violation before obtaining such basic discovery would frustrate PAGA’s enforcement purpose. Employee privacy concerns are real but adequately addressed through notice-and-opt-out procedures, not by denying discovery.
Practice Pointer
Williams is the key discovery tool in representative actions: PAGA (and class) plaintiffs can obtain statewide employee contact information without first proving their case, subject to a privacy opt-out. Plaintiff’s counsel should move early for this discovery, propose a Belaire-West notice to address privacy, and resist demands for a premium merits showing as a precondition.
06. Open questions
Williams settled the presumptive right to statewide contact-information discovery and the privacy-protection mechanism, but the precise scope and timing of broader merits discovery in PAGA actions — and how manageability concerns bear on discovery — continue to be litigated.
Cite this entry
Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.
“Williams worked for Marshalls at its Costa Mesa store beginning in January 2012. In 2013, Williams sued Marshalls under PAGA.” — 3 Cal.5th at p. 537
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].
Read the full opinion (official slip opinion, PDF) →
See also: Turrieta v. Lyft · LaCour v. Marshalls