The Ninth Circuit recently granted a petition for writ of mandamus to
vacate a district court's order that authorized a putative
consumer class plaintiff who had no viable class claim to conduct
discovery solely to identify others who might.
The plaintiff, William Rushing, a Kentucky resident, initially
sued Williams-Sonoma for damages under California state law for
allegedly misrepresenting that sheets he had purchased had a 600
thread count. Rushing also sought damages for a putative class of
consumers who bought bedding from Williams-Sonoma based on the same
underlying alleged misrepresentations.
Before any class action was certified, the district court
determined that Kentucky law governed Rushing's claim and
prohibited such class actions. In response, Rushing elected to
pursue his personal claims under Kentucky law and to seek
"discovery from Williams-Sonoma for the sole purpose of aiding
his counsel's attempt to find a California purchaser . . . who
might be
