Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On August 21, 2026, the district court granted final approval of the class action settlement, overruled objections, and entered judgment. Several objectors, including Mr. Sussman, filed a joint notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs subsequently filed motions seeking to require objectors to post appeal bonds, which remain pending. On October 28, 2026, plaintiffs filed a discovery letter brief (Dkt.
No. 429) seeking to compel Mr. Sussman to appear for a deposition in Florida and produce documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 34. The central threshold dispute was whether Mr. Sussman, as an objector who filed an appeal, is a ‘party’ subject to party discovery rules or a non-party requiring a Rule 45 subpoena issued from the district where compliance is required (Florida).
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel Mr. Sussman to comply with Rule 30 and Rule 34 discovery requests, without prejudice. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to convincingly show that Mr. Sussman is a ‘party’ for purposes of the discovery sought. Relying on Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002), the Court noted that nonnamed class members who object and appeal may be parties for some purposes but not others, and the label ‘party’ is a context-dependent conclusion about procedural rule applicability.
The Court found Devlin did not establish that filing an appeal converts an objector into a party for discovery purposes. The Court also found plaintiffs’ cited cases, Munoz v. PHH Mortg. Corp. and In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig., did not squarely address the issue. Plaintiffs may seek discovery from Mr. Sussman by other means, presumably a Rule 45 subpoena in Florida.
Key Takeaways
- Filing an appeal as a nonnamed class member objector does not automatically render that person a ‘party’ for all procedural purposes, including party discovery under Rules 30 and 34.
- The status of ‘party’ is context-dependent; an objector may be a party for appeal standing but not for discovery or diversity jurisdiction.
- Discovery from a non-party objector residing in a different district generally requires a Rule 45 subpoena issued from the district where compliance is required.
- The denial is without prejudice, preserving plaintiffs’ ability to seek discovery via proper non-party mechanisms.
- Magistrate Judge DeMarchi distinguished Devlin v. Scardelletti, limiting its holding to appellate standing rather than discovery obligations.
Why It Matters
This order clarifies the procedural posture of objectors who appeal class action settlements in the Northern District of California. It establishes that objector-appellants retain non-party status for discovery purposes, requiring plaintiffs to utilize Rule 45 subpoenas in the objector’s district of residence rather than party discovery rules.
This ruling protects objectors from undue burden and jurisdictional overreach while preserving the settling parties’ ability to obtain relevant information through proper channels. The decision aligns with the principle that procedural labels like ‘party’ are functional and context-specific, not absolute.
The ruling was deliberately narrow. It did not hold that settlement objectors can never face discovery, and it did not decide whether the requested information was relevant to the pending appeal-bond motions. Instead, it required the settling plaintiffs to use a discovery mechanism appropriate for a nonparty, leaving them free to seek the same information by other means. The court denied the letter request without prejudice, so the discovery dispute may return in a procedurally proper form while the appeal-bond motions remain pending.