18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 693 for electric service pursuant to HB 6.” Id . at *6. The Court found that Plaintiffs met the numerosity requirement at over two million class members. The Court further determined that common questions asserted by Plaintiffs and class members all depended on a common contention that was capable of class-wide resolution, and the inquiries necessary would generate common answers that are likely to drive resolution of the lawsuit. This Court agreed with Plaintiffs that there was no material variation in the fact patterns amongst the claims of the class, and thus their claims were typical to those of the class members. The Court also ruled that the named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel met the adequacy requirement. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Court held that answering the central questions of whether Defendants’ conduct warranted an award of damages pursuant to the RICO, the OCAA, and/or statutory and common law claims with regard to the entire class would be preferable to separate litigation of individual claims. Id . at *13. The Court opined that the common questions predominated over possible individual questions, since the alleged wrongful conduct was the same with respect to all class members and could be determined on a class-wide basis. Id . at *13-14. Finally, the Court determined that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication because there had been no other cases filed prior to the current litigation regarding the same allegations, the forum was convenient, and the management of the case as a class action presented no unusual difficulties. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (lxvi) Sanctions, Contempt, And Unethical Misconduct Issues In Class Action Litigation Al Otro Lado, et al. v. Mayorkas , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61508 (S.D. Cal. March 29, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendants’ implementation of the "Turnback Policy," unlawfully obstructed individuals’ ability to seek asylum in the United States by using "metering" or "queue management" measures in which government officials routinely instructed asylum seekers to put their name on a list and wait until their number was called before they could formally request asylum at a port of entry. Id . at *7. The parties began discovery, and found themselves in dispute over “handwritten notes by Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officials during daily operational meetings with CBP leadership at its Office of Field Operations ("OFO"), during which queue management, metering and/or the Turnback Policy may have been discussed.” Id . at *7-8. Since the offices failed to preserve the notes to produce during discovery, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants should be sanctioned by finding the notes included instructions for officers to turn away asylum seekers and that the Turnback Policy was pretexual for discrimination. Id . at *8. Defendants contended that although the officers disposed of these handwritten notes, the sanction was not warranted because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the notes contained information relevant to their claims and that they were prejudiced by the spoliation. Id . The Magistrate Judge previously had recommended that the Court decline Plaintiffs’ request and adopt an evidentiary exclusion sanction. There were no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. On Rule 72 review of the recommendation, the Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Court noted that the handwritten notes were within the ambit of the litigation holds and thus Defendants were required to preserve the notes for discovery. The Court ruled that the destruction of the evidence was unreasonable and negligent. Id . at *10. However, given the volume of other contemporaneous documents produced in this case memorializing meetings and communications on these matters, the Court further held that any prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting from the destruction of the notes did not warrant the requested rebuttable presumption. Id . Instead, the Court determined that Defendants would be precluded from relying on testimony about the operations meetings at trial to support their defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims. Id . at *11. Accordingly, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part the parties’ motion. Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41097 (N.D. Cal. March 4, 2021). Plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action alleging that Defendant engaged in anti-competitive conduct by barring consumers from downloading iPhone apps not offered in the official App Store and charging substantial commissions for being part of the App Store offerings. During discovery, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions regarding alleged public disclosure of information subject to the protection order in the action. The Court denied the motion on the grounds that the information was not actually confidential. As part of the protective order, certain documents were classified as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only.” Id. at *3. Any party viewing information designated as HC-AEO were required to sign an acknowledge agreement to be bound by the terms of the protective order. Previously during discovery, a large sample of transactional data was produced to Plaintiffs in