Facts
- Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund and eight other employee-benefit trust funds (plaintiffs) filed parallel putative class actions against Philip Morris and other tobacco-product manufacturers (defendants).
- Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of similarly situated funds and alleged defendants concealed information about the health dangers of cigarette smoking and other tobacco exposures.
- Before any class was certified, defendants sought discovery from absent putative class members, including interrogatories, document requests, and depositions.
- Defendants argued absent-member discovery was needed to oppose class certification, including to show that individualized issues would predominate over common issues and to test whether the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical of the proposed class.
- Plaintiffs objected that the requests were overbroad, burdensome, and premature because certification would turn largely on defendants’ conduct and common proof, not on individualized fund-by-fund inquiries.
- The dispute came to the court as a request to control the scope of precertification discovery directed at nonparty, absent class members.
Issues
- Whether, and to what extent, defendants may obtain precertification discovery from absent putative class members to oppose class certification.
Decision
- The court held that absent class members are not ordinary party litigants for discovery purposes and that precertification discovery from them requires careful judicial control.
- The court limited defendants’ discovery efforts, permitting only such absent-member discovery as was shown to be necessary and proportional to class-certification issues (such as predominance and typicality), while restricting requests that were overly broad, duplicative, or unduly burdensome.
- The court directed that discovery should primarily proceed through the named plaintiffs and other available sources, with absent-member discovery allowed only to the extent it could not reasonably be obtained otherwise.
Legal Principles
- Courts have discretion to regulate discovery in putative class actions, especially discovery aimed at absent class members who are not yet parties.
- Precertification discovery from absent class members is not automatic; it may be allowed when it is materially related to Rule 23 requirements (e.g., typicality, adequacy, and predominance) and when the requesting party shows need.
- When evaluating absent-member discovery, courts consider burden, expense, and the risk that wide-ranging discovery will function as a merits inquiry or create improper pressure on potential class members.
- Discovery should be tailored and proportional, often favoring narrower methods (such as limited written discovery or sampling) and relying first on discovery from named plaintiffs and defendants’ own records where possible.
Conclusion
In this precertification discovery ruling, the court restricted tobacco manufacturers’ attempts to serve broad interrogatories, document requests, and depositions on absent putative class members, allowing only limited, targeted discovery tied to class-certification questions and emphasizing that the named plaintiffs and other sources should be the primary focus of discovery at that stage.