WILLIAMS V. SUPERIOR COURT (MARSHALLS OF CA)
Court: Supreme Court of California
I. Is the plaintiff in a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 entitled to discovery of the names and contact information of other "aggrieved employees" at the beginning of the proceeding or is the plaintiff first required to show good cause in order to have access to such information?
II. In ruling on such a request for employee contact information, should the trial court first determine whether the employees have a protectable privacy interest and, if so, balance that privacy interest against competing or countervailing interests, or is a protectable privacy interest assumed?
The RLC filed a retail-specific amici brief asking the California Supreme Court to clarify California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) law as it relates to the appropriate scope and sequence of discovery demands in PAGA-only cases. The brief further explains the benefits to employees from resolving their meritorious individual claims through arbitration rather than by bringing PAGA-only claims.
Procedural History and Case Documents:
- Petition for review granted August 2015
- William's opening brief on the merits filed November 2015
- Marshalls of CA's answer brief on the merits filed November 2015
- William's reply brief filed April 2016
- California Supreme Court Decision issued July 2017