1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDELARIO PAREDES QUINTERO, No. 2:23-cv-1127 DJC DB

PEDRO PAREDES AGUILAR,

12 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 13 ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 15 v. 16 RCO REFORESTING, INC., and

ROBERT C OCHOA,

17 18 Defendants. 19 20 On June 13, 2023, plaintiffs, proceeding through counsel, initiated this class action by 21 filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) Neither defendant filed an 22 answer and defendants’ default was entered on August 18, 2023. (ECF No. 9.) On August 23, 23 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 10.) 24 Therein, plaintiffs explain that the complaint is “seeking redress for unpaid overtime 25 wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 . . . and the California Labor Code.” (Id. at 1.) 26 Plaintiffs intend to seek default judgment but “need evidence to establish damages.” (Id. at 2.) 27 “In order to identify the Collective and Class Action Members and to prove up the monetary 28 damages” plaintiffs are seeking an order allowing plaintiffs to conduct discovery “to investigate 1 members of the collective and potential damages.” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs’ motion was referred to 2 the undersigned on September 5, 2023. (ECF No. 13.) Although defendants were served with 3 noticed of the motion neither defendant has filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 16.) The 4 undersigned finds plaintiffs’ motion suitable for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local 5 Rule 230(g). 6 Pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may not seek 7 discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . 8 when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 9 Courts often grant such requests upon a showing of “good cause.” See Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. 10 Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 11 Good cause may exist where “the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the 12 administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, Inc. v. 13 Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). ‘In evaluating a claim of 14 good cause, courts in this Circuit regularly consider ‘(1) the concreteness of plaintiff’s showing of 15 a prima facie claim of actionable harm; (2) the specificity of the discovery requests; (3) the 16 absence of alternative means to obtain the subpoenaed information; (4) the need for subpoenaed 17 information to advance the claim; and (5) defendant’s expectation of privacy.’” Scofield v. 18 National Tax Advisory Services LLC, Case No. CV 22-6931 DSF (PYCx), 2022 WL 19263343, 19 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022) (quoting Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:22-cv-0158 TLN 20 CKD, 2022 WL 657932, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022)). 21 Here, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs have established good cause for expedited 22 discovery. It appears that plaintiffs have stated a prima facie claim of actionable harm. Plaintiffs 23 have identified the discovery plaintiffs intend to seek. There appears to be no others means to 24 obtain the information sought. Plaintiffs need the information to establish a class as well as 25 damages. And plaintiffs’ need for the information outweighs defendants’ expectation of privacy. 26 See generally Scofield, 2022 WL 19263343, at *2 (“numerous courts in this Circuit and 27 elsewhere have authorized discovery on the issue of damages after the entry of default”); Twitch 28 Interactive, Inc. v. Johnston, Case No. 16-cv-3404 BLF, 2017 WL 1133520, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 1 | Mar. 27, 2017) (“the Court finds that Twitch has established good cause to warrant expedited 2 | discovery in this matter in order to support the anticipated motion for entry of default judgment 3 | and the claim for damages.”), 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiffs’ August 23, 2023 motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 10) is 6 | granted; and 7 2. The October 27, 2023 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion is vacated. 8 | Dated: October 23, 2023 9 10 ll ORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil/quintero 1 127.early.disc.ord 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28