In Mbazomo v. ETourandTravel, Inc., 2017 WL 2346981, at *3 (E.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Bastian compelled production of class-wide names and telephone numbers of potential classmembers.
Defendant objects to the disclosure of names and telephone numbers of potential class members on privacy grounds. Plaintiff further points out that the parties have signed a protective order, while Defendant argues that that protective order has not been, and will not be, signed by the Court. “[T]he right of privacy is not absolute and may be subject to invasion depending on the circumstances. Thus, privacy concerns are not an absolute bar to discovery, but instead are subject to the balancing of needs.” Burgess v. Wm. Bolthouse Farms Inc., No. 08-CV-1287LJOGSA, 2009 WL 4810170, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2009). The requesting party must bear the burden of showing that the need for the information outweighs the privacy right involved. Rangel v. Am. Med. Response W., No. 1:09-cv-01467 AWI GSA, 2010 WL 5477675, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2010). In determining TCPA actions, California federal courts routinely hold that name and telephone number disclosures do not present a serious privacy invasion. See, e.g., Thrasher v. CMRE Fin. Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 1138469, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015). In contrast, Plaintiff’s need to establish class certification via the disclosure of these names and telephone numbers is essential to her case. Plaintiff has shown that her needs to pursue class action status outweigh this minimal privacy right. . . . Even if discovery had been phased, the Court agrees with the weight of authority on this matter that call logs and dialing lists are “relevant to [the] commonality” prong of the class certification inquiry. Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp. LLC, No. C. 13-00737 RS, 2014 WL 325132, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014). The requested list would also be relevant to Plaintiff’s need to show numerosity. Gusman v. Comcast Corp., 298 F.R.D. 592 (S.D. Cal. 2014), turned on a weighing of the production of admittedly relevant (under the prongs of commonality and numerosity) out-going call logs against the burden, convenience, and expense of producing a call log of twenty-two million potential class members, an undeniably massive number. Id. at 597-98. There is no showing that the relative burden is so high in this case, while the relevance of the information remains the same. Additionally, there is no stipulation present in this case which would render Plaintiff’s need to prove these elements moot, as there was in Gusman. Since Plaintiff must prove this element, she should have the opportunity to conduct proportional discovery on it. Though the Court is sympathetic to the burden concerns of producing enormous and lengthy data files, the ability to do so via csv and spreadsheet-ready data files reassures the Court that the request is proportional to the needs of the case, especially given that Defendant may rely on these same files to establish defenses. As discussed above, the privacy concerns present are outweighed by Plaintiff’s need, and that conclusion is unremarkable given the conclusions of other courts. Defendants are ORDERED to produce the materials requested through Request for Production No. 9. However, to protect the privacy rights these third parties do possess, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s request to prohibit Plaintiff and her counsel from contacting any person appearing on the call logs unless and until a class becomes certified in this case at a later date. The call logs and call lists produced in this case may not be used for any purpose if the motion for class certification is denied. The documents shall be unredacted.