Split Ninth Circuit Uses Mandamus to Reverse Class Discovery
In In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a district court had ordered a defendant to produce a list of its customers so opposing counsel could identify a lead plaintiff to pursue a class action. A split panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded that this discovery order was clearly erroneous and warranted reversal via mandamus.
The plaintiff in Williams-Sonoma sought to represent a class of consumers who purchased bedding from the defendant. He alleged that the defendant had exaggerated the thread count in its bedding, and he sought to recover under California consumer-protection laws. But the district court determined that Kentucky law governed the plaintiff’s claim, and Kentucky law prevented the plaintiff from pursuing his claims in a class action. The plaintiff then sought and obtained an order requiring the defendant disclose its California customers who the same bedding. The sole purpose for this discovery was to assist the plaintiff’s counsel in finding a lead plaintiff for the purported class. The defendant petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus that would require the district court to vacate the discovery order.
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition. It held that the district court’s discovery order was clearly wrong under the Supreme Court’s decision in Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders. Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” And the court read Oppenheimer Fund to hold that “seeking discovery of the name of a class member (here an unknown person, who could sue [the defendant]) is not relevant within the meaning of that rule.” As to the other mandamus requirements, the Ninth Circuit determined that the defendant had “no other adequate means for relief available to it at this time,” and the alleged harm—disclosure of the defendant’s customers—could not be cured in a later appeal. Although the case did not involve any recurring errors by the district court or raise new and important issues, the balance weighed in favor of mandamus. The court accordingly granted the petition.
Dissenting, Judge Paez contended that the district court had not even erred, much less clearly erred. He read Oppenheimer Fund to mean only that once a class is certified, class counsel must use the mechanisms of Rule 23—not the discovery rules—to notify class members. Oppenheimer Fund “did not hold that plaintiffs cannot seek the identities and contact information of absent class members for a different purpose before the class is certified.” And even if the discovery rules did not allow for the discovery sought in Williams-Sonoma, the broad powers of Rule 23 could. In any event, there was no error that warranted mandamus.
In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 2020 WL 131360 (9th Cir. Jan 13, 2020), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally allows privilege claimants to appeal from discovery […]
Continue reading....
In CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 discovery proceeding was not final because the district court had not definitively resolved the scope of discovery. Although the district court had authorized a subpoena, the court had not addressed the discovery target’s objections to the scope of […]
Continue reading....
In In Re Grand Jury Investigation, the Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant could not appeal orders compelling it and third parties to produce documents. The analysis of the order directed at the privilege claimant was straightforward. Privilege claimants normally must take contempt appeals to challenge a discovery order. The privilege claimant in Grand […]
Continue reading....
In In re Search Warrants Issued February 18, 2022, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal that challenged the filter protocols for seized evidence. The district court had approved certain protocols to weed out potentially protected evidence. The district court later denied a privilege claimant’s motion seeking to alter those protocols. The Fourth Circuit held that […]
Continue reading....
Robert H. Klonoff has posted a draft of his new article Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f): Reflections After a Quarter Century. The article includes new empirical data on appeals (and attempts to appeal) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and updates my study from a few years ago. It also includes an analysis […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....