Response | Filed: June 08, 2026
| Entered: June 08, 2026
Ahumada v. Giorgio Armani Corporation et al
Labor: Other | California Southern
Reply to Response to Motion
REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Jacqueline Ahumada. (Attachments: # 1 Reply re Proposed Class Action Trial Plan, # 2 Compendium of Evidentiary Objections to Evidence, # 3 Objections to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice, # 4 Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Robert W. Crandall, # 5 Opposition to Defendant's Objections to Class Member Declarations, # 6 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Amanda L. Scott, # 7 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Eric R. Lietzow, # 8 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Melissa Grant)(Grant, Melissa)
Order | Filed: April 21, 2026
| Entered: April 21, 2026
Ahumada v. Giorgio Armani Corporation et al
Labor: Other | California Southern
Order on Motion to Compel
Order re: In Camera Review and Defendant's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 92 ): The Court has conducted an in camera review of the documents at issue in Defendant Giorgio Armani Corp.'s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 92 ). The Court GRANTS the Motion in part and DENIES the Motion in part as follows:
1. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's work product objection to the documents described in number 76 of Plaintiff's privilege log. Plaintiff's counsel waived any work product protection for these documents by mailing them to third-party putative class members whom Plaintiff's counsel does not represent. Wilmuth v. Amazon.com, Inc., No 2:23-cv-1774-JNW, 2025 WL 3039344, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025) ("The majority rule is that putative class members have no attorney-client relationship with class counsel before certification."); U.S. E.E.O.C. v. ABM Indus. Inc., 261 F.R.D. 503, 512 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (finding, in wage and hour action, work product privilege did not protect mass communication to unrepresented putative class of employees, where the communication lacked "any request to maintain [its] confidentiality" and invited current and former employees to respond).
2. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's objections to document numbers 77, 78, 84, 85, 87, 88, and 89 listed on Plaintiff's privilege log. The Court finds the primary purpose of these communications was to seek legal advice or representation. Barton v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Central Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Prospective clients' communications with a view to obtaining legal services are plainly covered by the attorney-client privilege under California law, regardless of whether they have retained the lawyer[.]").
3. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections to document numbers 79, 81, 83, and 86 listed on Plaintiff's privilege log. No attorney-client privilege exists between Plaintiff's counsel and putative class members, and the communications were not made to seek legal advice or representation. Briggs v. OS Rest. Servs., LLC, No. 2:18-cv-8457-JAK-AFMx, 2019 WL 7195620, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (finding no attorney-client privilege applied to communications from putative class counsel to putative class members "who did not seek to engage Plaintiff's counsel as their attorney."). To protect the privacy of these individuals, however, the Court permits Plaintiff's counsel to redact the names and other identifying information from the production of these documents. See Dkt. No. 92 at 5 (Defendant's redaction proposal).
Plaintiff must produce the non-privileged documents listed in this Order on or before May 1, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on 4/21/2026. (no document attached) (alr)