Hellmann-Blumberg v. University of the Pacific

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/10/13 GRANTING IN PART 27 Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Defendant shall produce to plaintiff's counsel the requested documents identified within this pleading within 28 days of the date of service of this Order. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 UTHA HELLMANN-BLUMBERG, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-0286 TLN DAD v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, a California Corporation, ORDER 14 15 Defendant. 16 / 17 This matter came before the court once again on May 10, 2013, for hearing on 18 plaintiff’s motion to compel production. (Doc. No. 27.) Attorney Jose Fuentes appeared on 19 behalf of plaintiff Utha Hellmann-Blumberg. Attorney Linda Adler appeared telephonically on 20 behalf of defendant University of the Pacific. 21 After considering the arguments of the parties set forth in the joint statement of 22 discovery disagreement filed May 2, 2013 (Doc. No. 44)1 and at oral argument, plaintiff’s motion 23 to compel production is granted in part as explained below. 24 25 26 1 As narrowed by the Joint Statement of Discovery Disagreement, the dispute at issue is now limited to plaintiff seeking of copies of defendant’s “Diversity Hiring Plan (UOP01904) from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 2010” as sought by request for production number 64. 1 1 The court, upon reflection, concludes that the discovery sought by plaintiff may 2 have relevance to her claim of discrimination in defendants denial of her seeking tenure and 3 promotion and in defendant’s ultimate decision to terminate her. See Gonzalez v. Police Dept., 4 City of San Jose, 901 F.2d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We agree that evidence that the employer 5 violated it’s own affirmative action plan may be relevant to the question of discriminatory 6 intent.”); see also Craik v. Minnesota State University Bd., 731 F.2d 465, 472 (8th Cir. 1984) 7 (“The defendants often did not abide by the plan. They did not set goals and timetables for 8 promotion through the academic ranks, or for chair positions. Nor did they set timetables for 9 appointing women to administrative positions.”); Butler v. Home Depot, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1257, 10 1261-62 (N.D. Cal. 1997). Moreover, it has not been established that the defendant’s “Diversity 11 Hiring Plan” which plaintiff seeks does not address the tenure review process directly at issue 12 here. 13 Engaging in the balancing required under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure, the court does find that the scope of the production sought by plaintiff is 15 unreasonable, particularly in light of defendant’s unchallenged representation that the “Diversity 16 Hiring Plan” is not electronically maintained by the University. Accordingly, the court will limit 17 the required production to the “Diversity Hiring Plan” in effect during the five calendar years of 18 2004-2008.2 The court believes that a search for the University’s “Diversity Hiring Plan” in 19 effect for that limited number of years does not impose an undue burden on defendant. 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 26 2 Plaintiff was denied tenure and promotion in 2007 and was terminated in 2008. 2 1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents (Doc. No. 27) 2 is granted in part. Defendant shall produce to plaintiff’s counsel the requested documents 3 identified above within twenty-eight days of the date of service of this order.3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 10, 2013. 6 7 8 9 DAD: Ddad1\orders.civil\hellmann0286.oah.051013 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 26 The court notes that the discovery deadline in this action has recently been extended to August 23, 2013 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?