## Facts

- A consumer purchased a Pioneer DVD player, alleged it was defective, and filed a putative consumer class action against Pioneer.
- In discovery, the plaintiff sought unredacted copies of hundreds of prior complaints about the same DVD model and the complainants’ names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
- Pioneer produced redacted complaints but withheld identifying information, asserting customers’ California constitutional privacy rights.
- The trial court ordered Pioneer to send a notice letter informing complainants their contact information would be disclosed to plaintiff’s counsel unless they objected within a stated time (opt-out).
- Pioneer sought writ relief, arguing disclosure required each customer’s affirmative consent (opt-in).

## Issues

1. Whether California’s constitutional right to privacy bars compelled disclosure of complaining customers’ names and contact information absent affirmative opt-in consent.
2. Whether an opt-out notice procedure (notice plus opportunity to object, with nonresponse treated as consent) sufficiently protects privacy interests in pre-certification class discovery.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s discovery order.
- The court held that requiring affirmative opt-in consent was overprotective and inconsistent with California privacy doctrine.
- The court approved the opt-out procedure as a reasonable method to accommodate privacy while permitting relevant discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Personal contact information can implicate the California constitutional privacy right, but the strength of the privacy interest depends on context and the individual’s reasonable expectations.
- Individuals who voluntarily provided contact information to a defendant while complaining about the product at issue have a reduced expectation of privacy regarding use of that information for closely related purposes, including litigation about that product.
- Discovery disputes involving privacy require a balancing of (1) the seriousness of the invasion, (2) the requesting party’s need for the information, and (3) the availability of less intrusive alternatives.
- An opt-out notice procedure can adequately protect privacy where the information sought is limited to contact details, relates to persons who previously complained about the same alleged defect, and provides clear notice and a meaningful opportunity to object.

## Conclusion

In a putative consumer class action, a trial court may order disclosure of prior complainants’ names and contact information to plaintiff’s counsel using an opt-out notice process, because that procedure reasonably protects California constitutional privacy interests while allowing relevant discovery.


Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v. Superior Ct., 40 Cal. 4th 360, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, 150 P.3d 198 (Cal. 2007)