Tien

Tien v. Superior Court

Good Law
139 Cal. App. 4th 528·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 720·2006 Daily Journal DAR 5838·43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4006
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2006B187171California4,143 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

In this putative class action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations against an employer, the trial court ordered plaintiffs to provide the defendant with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all putative class members who contacted plaintiffs’ counsel. (For simplicity, we refer to the putative class members as class members.) Most or all of the class members who contacted plaintiffs’ counsel did so in response to a neutral letter sent to a sample of class members. Plaintiffs claim the compelled disclosure violates the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and the privacy rights of the persons who contacted plaintiffs’ counsel. We agree with the last of these contentions. Accordingly, we grant plaintiffs’ writ petition challenging the propriety of the trial court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2004, petitioner Kevin Tien and another individual filed this putative class action lawsuit against Tenet Healthcare Corporation. The action seeks relief on behalf of current and former hourly employees of Tenet who were allegedly denied meal and rest breaks, as well as proper payment for overtime work.

In July 2004,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.