In Acevedo, et al. v. Ace Coffee Bar, Inc., No. 07 C 4091, 2008 WL 538915 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2008), the court, prior to initial certification and in response to a motion to compel discovery responses, ordered production of the names, addresses and phone numbers of similarly situated employees in a FLSA collective action case, over the defendant's objections that production of that information would invade their employees' privacy rights.

Plaintiffs' alleged that they and other similarly situated employee were denied overtime pay in violation of federal wage and hour law. Plaintiffs', in discovery, requested that the defendant provide them with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of other similarly situated employees. The defendant objected to plaintiffs' request, in part, based on privacy concerns. The Court employed a "compelling needs" test to determine whether the plaintiffs' need for such information outweighed the privacy concerns involved. Ultimately, the Court determined that the nature of discovery in a collective action case requires a "broader scope of discovery in order to identify similarly situated employees who may wish to opt-in to the suit." In addition, the court found that due process requires that the plaintiffs be able to discover information about similarly situated employees in the early stages of the case, and that "such due process rights are more compelling than the privacy rights of potential plaintiffs' addresses and phone numbers." "To mitigate [d]efendants' privacy concerns, however, the Court . . . impose[d] a protective order to assure the information provided to [p]laintiffs [was] protected from [further] disclosure and used for its intended purposes." Specifically, the Court limited the production of the contact information to plaintiffs' counsel only, and limited its use to the instant litigation only.