PAGA Discovery of Employee Contact Information: The Williams Rule
“[T]o require a party to supply proof of any claims or defenses as a condition of discovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse.” With that line, the Supreme Court of California in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 refused to let an employer hold back statewide employee contact information in a PAGA case until the plaintiff showed his claims had merit. Resisting the list now takes evidence of real burden or a specific privacy problem.
What did Williams decide about PAGA discovery?
That a PAGA plaintiff is presumptively entitled to contact information for fellow employees across the state, with no good cause showing. Michael Williams worked at a Marshalls store in Costa Mesa and sued under PAGA over meal and rest breaks, pay timing, wage statements, and expense reimbursement. His interrogatories asked for the name, address, telephone number, and employment history of every nonexempt California employee over about two years. Marshalls said there were roughly 16,500 of them and refused.
The trial court ordered production only for the Costa Mesa store and required Williams to “appear for at least six productive hours of deposition” before any renewed motion. The Supreme Court reversed. It held that “a complaint that alleges such violations makes any employee allegedly aggrieved a percipient witness and his or her contact information relevant and discoverable.”
The ruling also put the burden on the employer. According to the opinion, “the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” The statute behind that is Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010, which allows discovery of “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.”
Can an employer limit the list to the plaintiff’s own location?
Not when the complaint alleges statewide violations. The Supreme Court said the trial court “had no discretion to disregard the allegations of the complaint making this case a statewide representative action from its inception,” according to the opinion. It also refused to require proof of a companywide policy first. A uniform policy “is not a condition for discovery, or even success, in a PAGA action,” the Court wrote.
Geography is the weak argument. The better scope argument follows the complaint’s own allegations. Williams tied relevance to the claims pleaded on behalf of nonexempt hourly employees. A request that reaches job groups the complaint doesn’t mention, such as salaried managers in a case about hourly meal breaks, leaves the employer a stronger overbreadth objection than one based on store or region. Read the complaint and the PAGA notice side by side before deciding what to fight over.
Which objections still work after Williams?
The ones the employer can back with evidence. Williams didn’t hold that every objection fails. It held that Marshalls hadn’t supported its objections, and it pointed to tools an employer can still use.
Burden, with proof. An “objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required,” the opinion said, quoting an earlier decision. Marshalls offered no such evidence. The Court added that the employee count alone proves little, because “depending on the nature of any computer database Marshalls might maintain, providing information for 10,000 employees might prove little different than for 1,000, or 100.” Under section 2017.020, a court “shall limit the scope of discovery” when “the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Timing. Marshalls argued the court could make Williams go first, but it never filed the motion that allows that. Section 2019.020(b) says that “on motion and for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery.” The Court left open what showing would be enough.
Privacy, handled with a notice. Employees have a real interest in their home contact information, but Williams applied the balancing test from Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. and held that a party seeking contact information doesn’t automatically have to show a heightened need for it. The standard protection is a Belaire-West notice. The opinion described it as notice of the action, “assurance they were under no obligation to talk to plaintiffs’ counsel, and an opportunity to opt out of disclosure by returning an enclosed postcard.” Courts may add a protective order “prohibiting disclosure of any received contact information outside the confines of a specific lawsuit.”
| Objection | How Williams treated it | What helps the employer |
|---|---|---|
| Other locations are outside the case | Rejected where the complaint alleged statewide violations | Hold the request to the job classifications and violations actually pleaded |
| Undue burden | Requires evidence of the work involved, and a headcount alone isn’t enough | A declaration from payroll or HR systems staff on time and cost, plus an offer of partial disclosure or cost sharing |
| Plaintiff hasn’t shown merit or standing | Not a condition of interrogatory discovery | Plead lack of standing as an affirmative defense and test it by summary adjudication |
| Employee privacy | Decided under Hill, with no automatic heightened showing | An opt-out Belaire-West notice and a protective order limiting use to the case |
| Plaintiff should be deposed first | Requires a sequencing motion under section 2019.020 | A timely motion supported by good cause |
Does the 2024 PAGA reform change the analysis?
It changes who has standing, which may matter later in the case. When Williams was decided, the opinion explained, an aggrieved employee was anyone “against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” For most actions brought on or after June 19, 2024, Labor Code section 2699(c)(1) now requires that the employee “personally suffered each of the violations alleged.” Section 2699(v) excludes actions whose PAGA notice was filed before that date.
The amendment doesn’t mention discovery. Williams also said the place to contest standing is not a discovery fight: “the way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment,” according to the opinion. An employer that believes the plaintiff never suffered some of the alleged violations should plead it in the answer and press it early. Narrowing the claims narrows what’s relevant.
The reform also added section 2699(p), which says a court “may limit the evidence to be presented at trial or otherwise limit the scope of any claim filed pursuant to this part to ensure that the claim can be effectively tried.” That provision addresses trial, but an order limiting a claim’s scope changes the discovery that claim supports.
How should a company handle the production itself?
Plan it once, carefully, because the list will be used for the rest of the case. The employee data pulled for the notice often becomes the starting point for the plaintiff’s damages model and for any penalty estimate in mediation. A list with duplicate entries or the wrong job codes creates problems that are hard to fix later.
Most parties use a third-party administrator to mail the Belaire-West notice, and the cost is usually negotiated. In Williams, the trial court had required “an equal sharing of costs by the parties” for the notice to the Costa Mesa store employees, as the opinion noted. Agree on the notice text and the opt-out deadline before anything goes out, along with what the administrator will do with returned mail.
Communications with current employees need care during this period. The Court treated the risk that “an employer might illegally retaliate against an employee for participating in an action” as a reason to allow discovery, citing Labor Code section 98.6. That statute now names PAGA plaintiffs directly: it bars retaliation against an employee who “has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699,” according to section 98.6(a). Managers shouldn’t discuss the lawsuit or the notice with their teams without guidance.
Steps after a PAGA plaintiff requests the employee list
The employer’s response to the first contact-information request often sets how the rest of discovery goes. The firm’s page on defending PAGA and wage claims in California has more on these cases.
- Preserve the HR and payroll system data, timekeeping records, the policies and handbook versions in effect, and the emails and texts of the managers involved, under a written litigation hold.
- Calendar the response deadline on the interrogatories, and check for arbitration agreements and an EPLI policy with notice requirements.
- Identify the people who can explain the HR database and estimate the cost of producing the data, and avoid any action toward the plaintiff that could look like retaliation.
- Pull the job classifications and locations named in the complaint and PAGA notice, a headcount for each, and a written estimate of the time and cost to produce the information.
- Get legal advice before serving objections or negotiating a Belaire-West notice, and before speaking to employees about the case.
PAGA discovery questions
Can an employer insist on an opt-in notice instead of opt-out?
It can ask, but courts rarely agree. Williams observed that “complete bans on disclosure to vindicate privacy interests, or disclosure subject to an opt-in requirement, may significantly hamper the ability of aggrieved employees” to enforce the labor laws, according to the opinion. An opt-out notice paired with a protective order is the usual result.
Does the plaintiff have to sit for a deposition before getting the list?
Not as a matter of course. The trial court in Williams imposed that condition, and the Supreme Court reversed. An employer that wants a particular order of discovery has to file a motion under section 2019.020(b) and show good cause, which Marshalls never did.
Does the same rule apply in wage and hour class actions?
Yes. Williams built on earlier class action decisions, including Pioneer Electronics and Belaire-West, which treated contact information for putative class members as routinely discoverable. The Court held that nothing about PAGA justified narrower discovery than those cases allowed. Class and PAGA claims are often pleaded together, so the same list and notice usually serve both.
Can the employer produce a sample instead of the full list?
Sometimes, by agreement or court order. In Williams, the plaintiff had offered to accept a 10 to 20 percent sample for the other stores, and the Court noted that trial courts should consider “partial disclosure or a shifting of costs before settling on a complete denial of discovery.” A sample is easier to get when the employer has evidence that full production would be costly.
If your company is fighting over a PAGA employee list
If your company has been sued under PAGA and the plaintiff wants contact information for every employee in the state, the evidence the company can offer on burden and scope usually decides how much it has to produce. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving PAGA representative actions and discovery disputes. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Labor Code section 2699, Labor Code section 98.6, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 2017.010, 2017.020, and 2019.020. The decision is Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.