Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 42 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`EMMANUEL CORNET, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-06857-JD
`
`
`ORDER RE LITIGATION NOTICE
`
`
`
`In early November 2022, after a buyout by Elon Musk, defendant Twitter, Inc., laid off a
`
`substantial portion of its workforce. Named plaintiffs sued Twitter on behalf of themselves and a
`
`putative class of other Twitter employees alleging that the layoffs violated federal and state laws.
`
`The second amended complaint (SAC), which is the operative complaint, contends that the layoffs
`
`did not comply with the federal and California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
`
`(WARN) Acts, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., Cal. Lab. Code § 1400 et seq. The SAC also alleges
`
`breach of contract claims against Twitter, and violations of California employment laws. See
`
`generally Dkt. No. 40.
`
`Twitter says that its employees typically agreed to arbitration clauses and class action
`
`waivers in their employment agreements. It has a pending motion to compel arbitration and strike
`
`the class allegations, Dkt. No. 18, which will be taken up in January 2023.
`
`The question presently before the Court is whether Twitter should give employees notice
`
`of this case in connection with severance packages that include a release of claims. Plaintiffs have
`
`asked for a “protective order” requiring such notice. Dkt. No. 7. Twitter agreed not seek releases
`
`from employees pending a decision on plaintiffs’ request. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. The Court
`
`expedited the briefing, and held a hearing on December 8, 2022. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 39.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 42 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiffs rely primarily on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) as the basis of their
`
`request, but “district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms
`
`with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40,
`
`47 (2016). Rule 23(d) is a specific application of this broad case management authority in the
`
`class action context. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1) (authorizing orders to “protect class members
`
`and fairly conduct the action” via “appropriate notice”); see also Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S.
`
`89, 100 (1981) (the Court “has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control over a
`
`class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties”).
`
`Among other measures, the Court may regulate communications with potential class members.
`
`See Gulf Oil, 452 U.S. at 101-02.
`
`On the record before the Court, a succinct and plainly worded notice of this case is
`
`warranted. Twitter intends to offer severance agreements to laid off employees, and its attorney
`
`stated at the hearing that it will ask for a general release as part of the package. Twitter will also
`
`ask employees to waive California Civil Code Section 1542, which would protect an employee
`
`from releasing claims that are unknown to them and that “would have materially affected [their]
`
`settlement with” Twitter. Cal. Civ. Code § 1542.
`
`This is a textbook scenario for providing notice of a pending class action lawsuit. There is
`
`no question that Twitter has the right to communicate with its employees in the normal course of
`
`the workplace relationship, including communications about severance and releases. But the
`
`communications should not be rendered misleading by omitting material information about a
`
`pending lawsuit. That is information an employee should know before deciding to accept a
`
`severance package that contains a general release. To that end, the Manual for Complex Litigation
`
`specifically advises that courts consider “notification to the members of the proposed class that the
`
`litigation is pending” when a defendant seeks releases from putative class members. Manual,
`
`§ 21.12, p. 248 (4th ed. 2004).1
`
`
`1 Although the Manual is not “a source of judicial power,” Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. U.S.
`Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 523 F.2d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 1975), it is published by the Federal
`Judicial Center, and is regularly cited by federal courts. See, e.g., Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`574 U.S. 405, 410 (2015).
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-06857-JD Document 42 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Twitter says notice is unnecessary in light of the arbitration and class action waiver clauses
`
`in the employment agreements. See Dkt. No. 20 at 11-14. The point is not well taken. Obtaining
`
`a release of claims without notice of the litigation would be prejudicial to employees, irrespective
`
`of whether the claims are ultimately heard in this Court or in an arbitration. In either forum, the
`
`release would bar the employees from asserting claims. Providing notice in advance of obtaining
`
`a release will also promote the fair and efficient administration of the case by curtailing disputes
`
`about the validity of a release made by an employee who was not aware of all the material facts.
`
`Despite ample opportunity in the written briefing and during oral argument, Twitter did not
`
`present a good reason to reach a different conclusion. It also did not demonstrate that providing
`
`notice of the case would impose an undue or unreasonable burden on it, or prejudice it in any way.
`
`See Gulf Oil, 452 U.S. at 101.
`
`Consequently, Twitter is directed to provide notice of the pendency of this case before
`
`asking an employee to release his or her legal claims. The parties advised the Court during the
`
`hearing that they had already started discussing what the notice should say. They are directed to
`
`finish that discussion, and file a proposed form of notice by December 19, 2022. The notice
`
`should be written in neutral and objective terms that a typical employee would understand.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: December 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`