PAGA Discovery in California: Why Employees Can Get Statewide Contact Information Before Proving Their Case
California’s Private Attorneys General Act, better known as PAGA, allows employees to bring claims for civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and other allegedly aggrieved employees. That can make PAGA cases feel different from ordinary lawsuits. The employee is not only suing over what happened to them personally. They are also acting as a representative of the state to help enforce the Labor Code.
In Williams v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court addressed a practical question with major consequences for PAGA litigation: can an employee pursuing a PAGA claim obtain contact information for other employees statewide before proving the case has merit?
The Court’s answer was yes.
The decision is important because it rejects the idea that a PAGA plaintiff must first make a special evidentiary showing before obtaining basic discovery needed to investigate whether other employees experienced similar Labor Code violations.
The Facts Behind the Case
Michael Williams worked for Marshalls of California, LLC, at its Costa Mesa store. In 2013, he filed a representative PAGA action alleging Marshalls violated California wage and hour laws.
Williams claimed Marshalls failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay required premium wages for missed breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay wages, and failed to reimburse employees for business expenses. He also alleged these violations were not isolated to his own store, but stemmed from companywide policies affecting nonexempt employees throughout California.
Early in discovery, Williams served interrogatories asking Marshalls to identify nonexempt California employees from March 2012 through February 2014. He requested their names, addresses, telephone numbers, employment history, and the total number of such employees. Marshalls disclosed there were approximately 16,500 employees but refused to provide the contact information.
Marshalls argued the request was too broad, unduly burdensome, and invaded the privacy rights of other employees.
The Trial Court Limited Discovery to One Store
The trial court partly granted and partly denied Williams’s motion to compel.
It ordered Marshalls to provide contact information only for employees at the Costa Mesa store where Williams worked. For the company’s other approximately 130 California stores, the court denied discovery. The trial court allowed Williams to renew the request later, but only after he sat for at least six hours of deposition. The court also allowed Marshalls to oppose any renewed motion by arguing Williams’s claims lacked merit.
In practical terms, the trial court required Williams to first provide evidence supporting his case before he could obtain statewide employee contact information.
Williams sought writ relief. The Court of Appeal denied relief, concluding he had not shown good cause for the broader discovery and, because employee privacy rights were involved, had not shown a compelling need for the information.
The California Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court Emphasized California’s Broad Discovery Rules
The Supreme Court began with a basic discovery principle: California law favors broad discovery. Parties generally may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged matters relevant to the subject matter of the case, including information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. That includes the identity and location of people with knowledge of discoverable matters.
The Court explained the burden was not on Williams to prove in advance why he was entitled to answers to his interrogatories. Once Marshalls objected, Marshalls had the burden to justify its refusal to respond.
That point drove much of the decision. The Court treated employee contact information as a basic starting point for investigation, not a reward a plaintiff earns only after proving the case.
PAGA Does Not Create a Special Preliminary Proof Requirement
Marshalls argued PAGA is different from a class action and should involve narrower discovery. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court recognized PAGA has unique features. A PAGA plaintiff acts as a proxy for the state, seeking civil penalties for alleged Labor Code violations. Unlike a class action, PAGA does not require class certification. But those differences did not justify restricting discovery.
The Court explained PAGA was enacted to address underenforcement of California labor laws. Because state agencies lacked resources to police every workplace violation, the Legislature authorized aggrieved employees to pursue civil penalties on the state’s behalf. Imposing a special proof requirement before discovery would undercut that enforcement purpose.
The Court also rejected the argument PAGA’s pre-lawsuit notice requirement means employees must already possess substantial proof before filing suit or obtaining discovery. PAGA requires notice of the specific Labor Code provisions allegedly violated and the facts and theories supporting the alleged violations. But the Court found nothing in the statute requiring a plaintiff to satisfy a heightened evidentiary threshold before ordinary civil discovery begins.
Why Statewide Contact Information Was Relevant
Williams alleged companywide Labor Code violations affecting nonexempt employees throughout California. The Supreme Court held contact information for other California employees was relevant because those employees could be witnesses to the alleged violations.
The Court compared the issue to wage and hour class action discovery, where employee contact information is routinely discoverable before class certification. The same basic reasoning applied in PAGA cases: other allegedly aggrieved employees may have information about the employer’s practices and whether violations occurred.
The Court also rejected the idea that Williams first had to prove a uniform companywide policy before obtaining information that might help him investigate whether such a policy existed. The Court described that approach as backwards. Discovery is often the way a plaintiff learns whether a broader policy or practice exists.
The Employer Did Not Prove Undue Burden
Marshalls also argued the request was unduly burdensome because it involved thousands of employees.
The Supreme Court held that was not enough. A party resisting discovery based on burden must provide evidence showing the amount of work required to comply. Marshalls had identified the approximate number of employees involved but had not provided evidence of the time, cost, or difficulty of producing the information.
The Court observed that producing information for thousands of employees may or may not be burdensome depending on how the employer’s records are maintained. Without evidence, the trial court had no basis to conclude the burden outweighed the likely value of the discovery.
Employee Privacy Did Not Bar Disclosure
The Court also addressed the privacy rights of other employees.
The Supreme Court acknowledged employees have a legitimate privacy interest in their home contact information. But the Court found that privacy concern did not justify a complete bar on disclosure. Contact information is personal, but it is not as sensitive as medical or financial records. The Court also doubted employees would reasonably expect their information to be categorically withheld from a plaintiff seeking to prove Labor Code violations and recover penalties on their behalf.
The Court noted privacy concerns could be addressed through a Belaire-West notice, which gives employees notice of the lawsuit and an opportunity to opt out before their contact information is disclosed. The trial court had already used that procedure for employees at Williams’s own store. The Supreme Court saw no reason why the same protection could not apply statewide.
The Court also clarified an important privacy standard. Some earlier cases had suggested a party seeking private information in discovery must always show a “compelling need.” The Supreme Court rejected that automatic rule. Courts must instead apply the more nuanced privacy balancing framework from Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., considering the nature of the privacy interest, the reasonable expectation of privacy, the seriousness of the intrusion, competing interests, and available protective measures.
The Decision
The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
It held Williams was entitled to pursue statewide employee contact information in his PAGA case without first sitting for a deposition, proving his personal claim had merit, proving other employees were aggrieved, or establishing a companywide policy. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Why This Case Still Matters
Williams remains an important PAGA discovery decision.
For employees and their attorneys, the case confirms discovery is not limited to the plaintiff’s own work location when the complaint alleges broader Labor Code violations. A PAGA plaintiff may seek information needed to investigate whether violations affected other employees.
For employers, the case is a reminder that objections must be supported with evidence. A broad discovery request may still be challenged when it is genuinely overbroad, unduly burdensome, or invasive of privacy. But the employer must make a record. General concerns about burden, privacy, or the merits of the plaintiff’s claims are not enough.
The decision also reinforces a larger point about PAGA litigation. PAGA was designed to assist public enforcement of California labor laws. Courts may manage discovery and protect privacy through notices, protective orders, cost-sharing, sampling, or phased discovery where appropriate. But they may not impose a special merits test before allowing discovery the Legislature otherwise permits.
Williams v. Superior Court was filed on July 13, 2017, by the California Supreme Court, Case No. S227228. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and held that a PAGA plaintiff seeking statewide employee contact information through interrogatories did not need to first prove the merits of the claim, establish good cause, or show a compelling need for the information before obtaining discovery subject to appropriate privacy protections.