United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
BONNIE MAGALLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant,
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken United States District Judge
certified class action in which class representative Bonnie
Magallon ("plaintiff), on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, moves to compel discovery for the
purposes of compiling a complete and accurate class
membership list. Defendant Robert Half International, Inc.
("RHI" or "defendant") opposes plaintiffs
motion to compel. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs
motion is granted.
certified class action, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, asserts that defendant
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Defendant operates a professional staffing service that
matches individuals seeking employment with employers.
Defendant matches each qualified applicant with a potential
employer seeking someone with the applicant's
qualifications to fill a short-term or long-term position.
Defendant requires a background check of applicants once they
have matched and interviewed with an employer.
2011, Plaintiff applied for a job with RHI. After she matched
and interviewed with a potential employer, RHI ordered a
background report from General Information Services, Inc.
("GIS"). RHI deemed her "not placeable"
based on information (criminal history) in that background
report. RHI did not give plaintiff a copy of her background
report until after it made the "not placeable"
decision and after she requested a copy of the report.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §
l68lb(b)(3) when it rejected her application for employment
because of her criminal history without giving her notice
that it was using a background report to make an adverse
employment decision, providing her a copy of the report, or
offering her a meaningful opportunity to dispute the
information in the report. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages
for willful violations of the FCRA.
case was filed on August 22, 2013 and the parties engaged in
extensive class certification discovery for two years. On
July 20, 2015, the parties filed simultaneous motions
regarding class certification. In an order dated November 10,
2015, I certified the following class:
All natural persons residing in the United States (including
territories and other political subdivisions) who: (i)
applied for temporary employment placement through RHI; (ii)
about whom RHI obtained a consumer report for employment
purposes from the General Information Services, Inc., from
August 22, 2008, until the present; (iii) the consumer report
contained either a "red flag" or a "yellow
flag"; and (iv) RHI determined the applicant was
"not placeable." The class does not include any
person who applied for placement through RHI in June 2012 or
later, signed the arbitration agreement acknowledgment form,
and did not opt out of the arbitration agreement within 30
Magatton v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., 311 F.R.D.
625, 641-42 (D. Or. 2015). After the class was certified,
plaintiff began her attempts to compile a class list. I
granted requests to extend discovery several times: once at
plaintiffs (unopposed) request, and twice in response to a
joint request. That initial phase of class list discovery
lasted ten months.
September 15, 2016, plaintiff filed her first motion to
compel class list discovery. Defendant produced a spreadsheet
of 4, 600 individuals in response. A majority of those
individuals listed class member status as "To Be
Determined." The 4, 600 number stood in stark contrast
to the 60, 000 individuals for whom defendant had previously
reported obtaining red- or yellow-flag background check
reports from GIS in the relevant time period, Following a
telephonic conference on November 16, 2016, 1 granted the
motion in part and denied the motion in part:
It is defendant's responsibility to identify class
members and produce a complete and accurate class list. The
Court acknowledges defendant's statements regarding
logistical difficulties identifying class members. In view of
those difficulties, defendant is ordered to produce the class
list by May 15, 2017. If defendant does not produce the class
list within that time period, the Court will order defendant
to produce the information and records described on page 8 of
Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Class List Discovery so that
plaintiff can independently compile the class list.
Defendant's request that plaintiff be ordered to pay part
of the costs of production is denied.
Magallon v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., No.
6:13-cv-01478 (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2016) (order granting in part
and denying in part Motion to Compel) (doc. 62). The second
phase of class list discovery lasted thirteen months, during
which time I granted three more joint requests to extend
discovery deadlines. On June 17, 2017, defendant produced an
amended class list of 1, 382 individuals. On November 3,
2017, plaintiff deposed Michael Hoffman, defendant's
employee responsible for compiling the class list.
filed the instant second motion to compel class list
discovery on December 20, 2017. Plaintiff argues that, at
this point, she is entitled to direct access to
defendant's files in order to compile an accurate class
list because defendant has not made diligent efforts to apply
the objective criteria provided in the class definition in
compiling the class list. Plaintiff contends that
defendant's process likely has omitted thousands of class
members from the class list. Plaintiff now seeks access to
defendant's files in order to independently come up with
a class list.
wants me to order defendant to produce a list of individuals
who (1) were the subject of GIS background reports ordered in
during the relevant time period, (2) had red or yellow flag
notations on their GIS background reports, and (3) were not
placed with an employer within thirty days of the date of