12 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 3,747 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."
  2. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard

    452 U.S. 89 (1981)   Cited 1,234 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"
  3. Kleiner v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta

    751 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 318 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's power to manage a class action included the power to prohibit a defendant from making "unsupervised, unilateral communications with the plaintiff class"
  4. Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co.

    509 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 266 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without discovery, and to deny discovery in such cases is an abuse of discretion
  5. Cox Nuclear Medicine v. Gold Cup Coffee Services, Inc.

    214 F.R.D. 696 (S.D. Ala. 2003)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "communications that undermine cooperation with or confidence in class counsel" may necessitate a protective order
  6. Bublitz V. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

    196 F.R.D. 545 (S.D. Iowa 2000)   Cited 22 times
    Noting that Gulf Oil set forth the broad principles governing limitations on communications with potential class members
  7. In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation

    126 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (N.D. Cal. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Finding “arbitrary deadline” in solicitation to putative class members “troubling”
  8. In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litigation

    250 F.R.D. 492 (S.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding limited amount of time to review settlement added to potential coerciveness, ordering curative notice
  9. Bird Hotel Corp. v. Super 8 Motels, Inc.

    CIV. 06-4073 (D.S.D. Feb. 1, 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that " certain amount of discovery is essential in order to determine the certification issue and the proper scope of a class action" but finding no need to contact individual members because all were subject to the same fee at issue in litigation
  10. Westerfield v. Quizno's Franchise Co., LLC

    Case No. 06-C-1210 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 6, 2007)

    Case No. 06-C-1210. April 6, 2007 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPROVE NOTICE AND ORDER TO PROVIDE NOTICE WILLIAM GRIESBACH, District Judge The gravamen of plaintiffs' class action complaint is that defendants made misrepresentations regarding vendor rebates, operating costs, and marketing practices, and that plaintiffs relied on those misrepresentations in purchasing from defendants several Quiznos Subs franchises in Wisconsin. The impetus behind plaintiffs' instant motion is their concern that Quiznos'

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 72,983 times   543 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 28,535 times   1151 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"