Opting out of class does not limit discovery rights.

Opt-out plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court, the Third Circuit confirmed in a recent ruling, denying a defense request for an injunction against discovery. The federal class action settlement in which the state court plaintiffs chose not to participate does not affect their individual state suits, the court held. (Drelles v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Nos. 024037, 02-4270, 2003 WL 23019203 (3d Cir. Dec. 24, 2003).)

The ruling protects individuals' fundamental right to bring their own suits seeking relief outside a class action, said Leslie Brueckner of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, who represents the plaintiffs. "The right to opt out means that class members can vote with their feet," she said. "And it protects against abusive class action settlements."

The issue arose after Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. settled a federal class action over allegedly deceptive sales practices. When a group of plaintiffs opted out of the settlement and filed their own suits in state court, Metlife asked the federal court that oversaw the settlement to issue an injunction barring the plaintiffs from conducting discovery or presenting any evidence related to the company's nationwide sales practices. Metlife argued that the plaintiffs were trying to relitigate in state court the claims it had already settled in federal court.

Disagreeing, Judge Julio Fuentes wrote, "Appellees ... are not relitigating the settled claims at all here; they are suing over their own alleged mistreatment at the hands of Metlife, not over someone else's claim."

Barring the opt-out plaintiffs from conducting full discovery would have derailed their state suits, Brueckner said: "If the injunction had been granted, we wouldn't have been able to prove any of our claims. We would have been stripped of our ability to obtain any relief against Metlife."

The insurer argued that some discovery requests were overly broad. The appeals court agreed this was possible but said the federal court was not the proper forum in which to address the issue. "To the extent that appellees may try to bring in evidence of nationwide practices that are irrelevant to their individual claims ... Metlife is free to object to such evidence before the appropriate state courts, who are the proper authorities to make such evidentiary rulings," Fuentes wrote.

At press time, the Third Circuit's ruling had not been published, though Brueckner said her clients have asked the court to publish it.

"Even as it is, the decision still has persuasive authority. It confirms our view that opt-out class members can't be restricted in their individual cases. They have a full right to their day in court," she said. "And even if the ruling is currently not designated precedential, it's still powerful authority to support that proposition."