Tillery v. Higman Barge Lines, Inc., No. 3:2014cv00143 - Document 29 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 24 Motion in Opposition to Disclosure of Telephone Numbers of Potential Class Members.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION JOSHUA TILLER V. HIGMAN BARGE LINES, INC. § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. G-14-143 OPINION AND ORDER Although the Parties have agreed to issue Notice to Higman s relevant vessel tankermen, a dispute remains over whether their telephone numbers must be disclosed in addition to the other information provided. This Court has carefully considered this matter and it now issues this Opinion and Order. While the judicial opinions cited by the Parties tend to be concerned with privacy interests, the underlying, often unspoken objection is the suspicion that improper solicitation of clients will result from the disclosure of personal telephone numbers. Given the relative ease with which private telephone numbers can be ascertained, it is this underlying suspicion that most concerns this Court as well. However, this Court tends to share the opinions of Judge Kennelly that the Plaintiff s interest in locating and contacting similarly situated employees outweighs the limited privacy interest in a home telephone number; and that Plaintiff s counsel, if ordered to do so, can be trusted to use the telephone numbers only in the event a Notice recipient s contact information turns out to be unsuccessful. Russell v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 575 F.Supp. 2d 930, 939 (N.D. Ill. 2008) That trust obviates the need for employing a third-party to place the calls. Moreover, the limited use of the home telephone numbers, if any, will best serve the goals of the conditional certification procedure of the FLSA. It is, therefore ORDERED that Higman s Motion in Opposition to Disclosure of Telephone Numbers of Potential Class Members (Instrument no. 24) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Higman SHALL promptly provide counsel for Plaintiff with the relevant tankermens telephone numbers. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff s counsel MAY NOT contact a potential Plaintiff by phone unless the mailed Notice and emailed Notice, if any, to that person are returned as undeliverable, with no forwarding address. It is further ORDERED that any authorized telephone contact with a potential Plaintiff SHALL be for the limited purpose of determining the best alternative address to which the Notice might by sent.1 DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 16th day of July, 2014. This Court has earnest doubt that an unalterable scripted inquiry would prove to be an effective method of communication; the Court, again, trusts counsel to follow the intent of its Orders. 1 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
