Pre-Class Certification Discovery To Seek Out A Plaintiff.
The complaint alleges a drug store chain has a corporate policy of automatically terminating employees who do not work any hours for 45 consecutive days, and that the policy discriminates against qualified individuals with disabilities in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act [FEHA; Government Code section 12900 et seq.]. But the named plaintiff is not disabled and was not terminated, and the trial court sustained the employers’ demurrer for lack of standing, giving 90 days leave to amend. The trial court also granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of the names and contact information of current and former employees. The employers filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ of mandate, finding the trial court abused its discretion in allowing precertification discovery, and stating: “There is no evidence in the record that [the named plaintiff] had any reason to believe she was a victim of the alleged termination policy when she filed suit. . .the potential for abuse of the class procedure is self-evident where the only named plaintiff has never been a member of the class.” (CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Charlene Deluca) (Cal. App. Third Dist.; September 15, 2015) (Ord. Pub. October 15, 2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 300 [193 Cal.Rptr.3d 574].)