[PROPOSED] JANUARY 20, 2015 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE EMAIL ADDRESSES

VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.

On January 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., this matter came on for a Case Management Conference in Courtroom 4 before Judge Vince Chhabria.

In preparation for the CMC, the Parties filed a Joint Case Management Conference Statement ("the CMC Statement") on January 13, 2015. (Guilbaud Dkt. No. 121.) In the CMC Statement, Plaintiffs alerted the Court to the fact that Defendant had not produced personal email addresses of putative collective members pursuant to the Court's October 3, 2014 and November 21, 2014 Orders, granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), nor had Defendant produced work email addresses for 69 of the putative collective members. The Court's October 3, 2014 order ("the Order") provides: ". . . the Court finds that names, last known mailing addresses, and email addresses will be sufficient. Sprint must provide this information for all current and former hourly-paid sales staff who worked at a Sprint retail store at any time during the three-year collective period. If Sprint possesses both personal and work email addresses for potential collective members, it should provide both." Defendant did not produce any personal email addresses. Defendant contended to Plaintiffs that Defendant's PeopleSoft HRIS database, which is its system of record for employee contact information from which it collected the names, contact information and work email addresses for putative class members as required by the Court's order, does not include employees' personal email addresses, and that a search for personal email addresses would require a manual search of employees' personnel files. As a result, Defendant only provided Sprint-related work emails — many of which are for former employees. The Parties disputed whether the Order required Defendant to manually search for personal email addresses in this manner. Additionally, Defendant did not produce any email addresses for 69 potential collective members, claiming that none of these individuals are current employees and as a result Sprint has no valid email addresses for them.

Having considered the issue as raised in the CMC Statement, and as further discussed by counsel and the Court at the Case Management Conference, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS AND ORDERS:

Sprint must review its personnel files and provide Plaintiffs with personal email addresses contained therein, to the extent it has them, for the 69 potential collective members for whom it failed to produce any email addresses. Sprint must produce any such personal email addresses it finds pursuant to that review no later than 14 days following the date of entry and filing of this Order by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.