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
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....