Appellate Decisions

Split Ninth Circuit Uses Mandamus to Reverse Class Discovery

The court deemed clearly erroneous an order requiring the defendant to disclose its customers so that class counsel could find a named plaintiff.

January 14, 2020

By Bryan Lammon

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.

recent posts

The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: April 2024
Notices of appeal, manufactured finality, unresolved claims, qualified-immunity appeals, and much, much more.
Appeals After Unresolved Claims & Theories
Has a district court issued a final decision if it overlooked one of the parties’ claims? Courts seem to disagree. But the best answer might be that these oversights implicate the adequacy of the judgment, not finality.
Manufactured Finality & Dispositive Interlocutory Orders
The Second Circuit split over whether it had jurisdiction after a stipulated judgment, particularly whether a preliminary-injunction decision effectively resolved an action.
Tenth Circuit Rejects Anti-SLAPP Appeals
The Tenth Circuit held that anti-SLAPP appeals are too factual in nature to be immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
No Rehearing on Rule 4(a)(6) & Multi-Purpose Notices of Appeal
The en banc Fourth Circuit declined to rehear a case asking whether a single notice of appeal could be treated as both a Rule 4(a)(6) motion and—once that motion was granted—a notice of appeal.

related posts

Reviewing Motions to Dismiss via Rule 23(f)
The Fourth Circuit split on whether it could review the denial of a motion to dismiss alongside a Rule 23(f) class-certification appeal.
Appealing CAFA Remands via § 1291
The Fifth Circuit held that litigants can use § 1291 (and not a discretionary appeal under § 1453(c)) to appeal remands under CAFA’s local-controversy exception.
The Fourth Circuit Cut Back on Perlman Appeals
Another court of appeals read too much into Mohawk Industries and held that parties can no longer take Perlman appeals.
A Rule 23(f) Appeal Due to an Inadequate Explanation
The D.C. Circuit allowed a Rule 23(f) class-certification appeal largely because the district court’s explanation for certifying a class was inadequate.
Rule 23(f) Appeals & Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Over a FLSA Collective Action
In an interlocutory appeal from the grant of class certification, the D.C. Circuit refused to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction over the certification of a FLSA collective action.