Karr v. Napolitano

Filing 43

ORDER regarding 42 the parties' June 4, 2012 joint discovery letter brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/14/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco
RICHARD PAUL KARR,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 11-02207 LB
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
JUNE 4, 2012 JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF

v.
JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security

[Re: ECF No. 37]

15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

17

I. INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff Richard Karr, a United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officer, sued

19

Defendant Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), after he

20

was demoted and suspended following an investigation concerning his January 8, 2009 request to a

21

subordinate employee to improperly access a computer database. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 7-10, ¶¶

22

36-50.1 Mr. Karr alleges that his demotion and suspension was discriminatory and retaliatory in

23

violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791, as amended by the Americans with

24

Disabilities Act of 1990, 12 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Americans with Disability Act

25
26
27
1

28

Citations are to the clerk’s electronic case file (ECF) with pin cites to the electronic page
numbers at the top (as opposed to the bottom) of the page.
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

1

Amendments Act of 2008, P.L. 110-325 (Claims One and Two).2 A discovery dispute has arisen

2

concerning the depositions of non-party Hyang Sock Farrell and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6)

3

deponent. Upon review of the joint discovery letter brief submitted by Mr. Karr and Defendant on

4

June 4, 2012, the court rules as follows.2

5
6

II. BACKGROUND
A. Mr. Karr’s Previous Positions and Prior Suspensions
Mr. Karr began working for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) in 1988,

7
8

and became a supervisor in 1995. MSPB 0831.3 On March 1, 2003, Mr. Karr moved from the INS

9

to the CBP, an agency within the DHS, where he held a similar position that is now called a

10

Supervisory Customs and Border Protection Officer (“SCBPO”). Id.
Mr. Karr served three suspensions from 2004 to 2009:

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
•

On May 5, 2004, Mr. Karr served a three-day suspension for: (1) failing to follow instructions

13

directing him not to go outside the chain of command and independently contact representatives

14

of foreign governments; and (2) granting a waiver allowing a foreign national to enter the

15

country without obtaining authorization from his chain of command. MSPB0495; MSPB0497-

16

98.

17

•

On October 26, 2006, Mr. Karr served a ten-day suspension for again failing to follow

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

Mr. Karr also alleged that his demotion and suspension was retaliatory and constituted an
adverse employment action in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), 5
U.S.C. § 1201, et seq., as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (Claim
Three). Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 10-14, ¶¶ 51-97. These claims were reviewed initially by the
Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), which upheld Mr. Karr’s demotion and suspension. Id.
at 3, ¶ 6. On March 7, 2012, the court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on these
non-discrimination claims because there are no issues of material fact that would call into question
whether (A) the MSPB’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law, (B) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
been followed, or (C) unsupported by substantial evidence. 3/7/2012 Order, ECF No. 33.
2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter to be suitable for
determination without oral argument.

27
3

28

“MSPB” citations refer to pages of the administrative record that was manually submitted
in this case with bates-stamps that ranged from MSPB0001-MSPB1877.
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

2

1

instructions directing him not to go outside the chain of command and independently contact

2

foreign government officials. MSPB0488-89.

3

•

On June 10, 2009, Mr. Karr served a 21-day suspension for once again failing to follow

4

instructions directing him not to go outside the chain of command and independently contact

5

foreign government officials. MSPB0482-83; MSPB0485.

6
7

B. The January 8, 2009 Incident and Mr. Karr’s Subsequent Suspension and Demotion
On January 8, 2009, Mr. Karr, then a GS-12 SCBPO in San Francisco, California, telephoned a

8

CBP passenger targeting unit, identified himself by name and title, and asked a lower-ranked officer

9

to perform an improper database search to see if his wife, who is a flight attendant, was onboard a

personal convenience. MSPB0446 (“I knew I had to coordinate transportation logistics to pick her

12
For the Northern District of California

particular flight. MSPB0285-87; MSPB0433-35; MSPB0441-46. Mr. Karr did this for his own

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

up at the airport.”). The officer refused to perform this improper search and notified her chain of

13

command, which in turn notified Internal Affairs. MSPB0443; MSPB0456.

14

The CBP conducted an investigation into the incident. MSPB0441-0481. During that time, Mr.

15

Karr temporarily was reassigned from the San Francisco International Airport Air Mail Facility to

16

the Drawback Unit at the San Francisco Customhouse, and his firearm was removed and his access

17

to system databases was limited. MSPB0267; MSPB0281; MSPB0419; MSPB0778; MSPB0780;

18

MSPB0795; MSPB1695-96. These steps are routine in cases involving such misconduct.

19

MSPB0780. Mr. Karr continued to receive his GS-12 salary, but he was not permitted to work

20

overtime due to the firearm removal and loss of system access. MSPB0267; MSPB0281;

21

MSPB0795.

22

The CBP’s Discipline Review Board (“DRB”) convened and considered Mr. Karr’s case.

23

MSPB0521-22. On October 19, 2009, the DRB proposed that Mr. Karr be suspended from duty and

24

pay for 45 days and be demoted from the position of GS-12 supervisory CBP officer to the position

25

of GS-11 journeyman CBP officer. MSPB0832; MSPB0433. Mr. Karr provided written and oral

26

replies to the proposed action on December 7, 2009 and December 10, 2009, respectively.

27

MSPB0832; MSPB0294; MSPB0423-27. These replies were presented to Seattle Director of Field

28

Operations Michelle James. On July 6, 2010, Ms. James issued a decision sustaining the charges,
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

3

1

agreeing that demotion was warranted, but mitigating the suspension to from 45 to 30 days.

2

MSPB0285-87. On July 18, 2010, the CBP implemented the demotion and suspension.

3

MSPB0832; MSPB0281; MSPB0283.

4

C. Mr. Karr’s Formal EEO Complaint

5

On July 13, 2009, Mr. Karr contacted a field EEO Manager to seek informal counseling

6

regarding alleged discrimination. MSPB0776. The San Francisco EEO Manager, Ms. Katherine

7

McPartland, met with Mr. Karr, confirmed his claims, and, on August 19, 2009, issued a notice

8

informing Mr. Karr of his right to file a formal EEO complaint within 15 days. MSPB0776-84.

9

On September 6, 2009, Mr. Karr did so. His EEO employment discrimination complaint alleged

apnea/hearing/sight/spine), prior EEO activity, and age, which resulted in several reassignment and

12
For the Northern District of California

that he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his physical disabilities (sleep

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

suspensions. See MSBP0758-75.4

13

On September 22, 2009, Mr. Karr was informed that his EEO complaint was not timely filed

14

because it was not submitted within 15 days of receipt of the notice, as required by 29 C.F.R. §

15

1614.106(b). MSPB0805-09. Mr. Karr was provided with an opportunity to explain why the EEO

16

complaint was not timely filed, and on October 6, 2009, he argued that it was timely and stated that

17

“most correspondence requiring a response is usually in business days and does not include

18
19
20
21

4

According to Mr. Karr, these reassignments and suspensions included the following:

22

27

• In November 2007, the CBP reassigned him to the East Bay Station in Oakland.
• In February 2009, the CBP reassigned him to the Air Mail Facility at the San Francisco
International Airport, denied him overtime, and denied him the opportunity to attend a Special
Emphasis Program event.
• On June 22, 2009, management suspended his employment for 21 days.
• On July 13, 2009, management temporarily relieved him of his supervisory responsibilities,
reassigned him to the Customhouse in San Francisco, California, removed his credentials, and
denied him overtime.

28

See MSBP0758-75.

23
24
25
26

C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

4

1

weekends or holidays.” MSPB0805-09; MSPB0803-84.5

2

On November 3, 2009, Mr. Karr’s EEO complaint was dismissed for untimely filing.

3

MSPB0813-14; see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The dismissal notice was sent via e-mail and

4

advised Mr. Karr that it constituted the final action by the agency and advised him of his appeal

5

rights. MSPB0813-14. Plaintiff did not file any appeal of this final agency decision. Id.;

6

MSPB0943-44, Deposition of Richard Karr, 122:6-125:3.

7

D. Mr. Karr’s Request for Accommodation
On December 10, 2009, Mr. Karr contacted the San Francisco EEO Manager to request

8

Francisco Customhouse. MSPB 0416; MSPB 0857. He asked to be assigned to the San Francisco

11

International Airport Air Mail Facility as a reasonable accommodation for sleep apnea because it is

12
For the Northern District of California

accommodation relating to his temporary assignment performing non-supervisory duties at the San

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

closer to his residence in San Mateo, and he claimed the shorter commute would help him with his

13

sleep. MSPB0416. Because, however, Mr. Karr had limited system access in connection with the

14

pending discipline, the CBP preferred to keep Mr. Karr at the San Francisco Customhouse pending

15

issuance of the final decision on the proposed disciplinary action. See id. On December 15, 2009,

16

the CBP engaged in an interactive dialogue with Mr. Karr, and he agreed to remain working at the

17

San Francisco Customhouse while his discipline was pending and to work with his supervisor to

18

devise a modified work schedule to address his sleep concerns. See id; see also MSPB0416.

19

E. Mr. Karr’s Administrative Appeal to the MSPB
On July 23, 2010, Mr. Karr filed an appeal with the MSPB challenging his demotion and 30-day

20
21

suspension (which began on July 18, 2010). The appeal raised affirmative defenses of:

22

•

harmful procedural error;

23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Also, on October 23, 2009, Mr. Karr contacted the San Francisco EEO Manager because he
wanted to amend his EEO complaint to include the DRB’s October 19, 2009 proposal notice for the
demotion and 45-day suspension as an additional discriminatory act. MSPB0429-30. The San
Francisco EEO Manager informed him that the proposal did not raise an actionable issue and that he
would need to wait until a final decision issued (as it did in July 2010) so he could show actual
harm. MSPB0429. Mr. Karr replied that he would consult with an attorney and decide if he wanted
to pursue a separate EEO complaint. MSPB 0430; see also MSPB0429.
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

5

1

•

disparate treatment based on disability discrimination (sleep apnea);

2

•

failure to accommodate his disability of sleep apnea;

3

•

reprisal for engaging in EEO activity;

4

•

retaliation for engaging in whistle-blowing activities; and

5

•

violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(12), which prohibits the CBP from taking or failing to take any

6

personnel action that would violate “any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly

7

concerning, the merit system principles contained in” 5 U.S.C . § 2301.

8

See MSPB0840-61. After the parties conducted both written discovery and depositions, the matter

9

proceeded to hearing, which lasted three days, and on March 18, 2011, the Administrative Judge

CBP had proved the charged misconduct, namely, that “it was a misuse of his position for [Mr.

12
For the Northern District of California

(“AJ”) issued an Initial Decision affirming the CBP’s action. MSPB0830-75. The AJ found that the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Karr], after identifying himself as a supervisor, to request this information from officers who were

13

lower in rank than him, knowing that they would have to access TECS [a sensitive law enforcement

14

database] based on his own personal request, rather than based on an official business reason.”

15

MSPB 0839. The AJ found that Mr. Karr made the request for “personal convenience.” Id. The AJ

16

also found that the CBP met its burden of proving the nexus between the proven misconduct and Mr.

17

Karr's duties and legitimate government interests. MSPB 0840.

18

The AJ also rejected each of Mr. Karr’s affirmative defenses. MSPB0840-61. Specifically, the

19

AJ found the following:

20

•

there were no harmful procedural errors or prohibited personnel practices in the CBP’s response

21

to Mr. Karr’s discovery requests, the CBP’s issuance of what otherwise could have been viewed

22

as two separate adverse actions for one charge, the CBP’s reassignment of Mr. Karr to the San

23

Francisco Customhouse pending the issuance of the decision, or the CBP’s assignment of a

24

deciding official (Ms. James) from outside Mr. Karr's chain of command (MSPB 0841-46);

25

•

Mr. Karr failed to prove any causal connection between his claimed disabilities and the charged

26

conduct (and, while not making a finding as to whether Mr. Karr was a qualified individual with

27

a disability, the AJ did note that Mr. Karr had received accommodations after requesting them in

28

December of 2009) (MSPB0856);
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

6

1

•

Mr. Karr failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to the affirmative defense of

2

whistleblowing, noting that “the [CBP’s] evidence in support of its action is strong,” and finding

3

that, “even in the absence of [Mr. Karr’s] alleged disclosures, the [CBP] would have taken the

4

same action,” and that Mr. Karr’s disclosures were not protected (MSPB0849-51); and

5

•

Mr. Karr had presented “no evidence, aside from his assertions, that his demotion and 30-day

6

suspension were in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation”and that Ms. James was

7

credible in stating that she had not retaliated against Mr. Karr ( MSPB086).

8

The AJ also deferred to the CBP and found the penalty reasonable as the CBP sufficiently and

9

thoughtfully considered the factors set forth in Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280

penalty, and agreed with the CBP’s finding that the conduct was “very serious” considering Mr.

12
For the Northern District of California

(1981). MSPB 0869. The AJ noted that the CBP had considered mitigating factors to reduce the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Karr’s position as a supervisor and law enforcement officer. MSPB0863. The AJ also made several

13

adverse credibility findings as to Mr. Karr’s claims and testimony. See MSPB0863 (finding his

14

claims that “he was not aware” that asking a subordinate for the information about his wife’s flight

15

was improper or would likely require querying the TECS database, was “not credible”); MSPB0838

16

(noting that his “varying characterizations” of an emergency “do not explain why he contacted the

17

RCC”); MSPB0864 (noting that his expression of remorse on the witness stand was “stated

18

unconvincingly”).

19

F. Mr. Karr’s Federal Complaint and Current Discovery Dispute

20

On May 5, 2011, Mr. Karr filed his federal complaint in district court. Complaint, ECF No. 17.

21

The surviving claims are for disability discrimination and retaliation. Mr. Karr requests an

22

injunction: (1) requiring the government to abolish prohibited personnel practices; (2) requiring the

23

government to reinstate him as a SCBPO; and (3) requiring the government to expunge “all negative

24

documentation," including evidence of the four suspensions and the demotion, from his personnel

25

file. Id. at 15. He also requests economic damages for lost pay, compensatory damages for

26

emotional distress, attorney’s fees and costs, and any other relief the court may deem just and

27

proper. Id. at 15-16.

28

On June 4, 2012, the parties submitted a joint discovery letter brief concerning the depositions of
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

7

1

Ms. Hyang Sock Farrell (one of Mr. Karr’s coworkers) and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent.

2

6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42.

3

III. LEGAL STANDARD

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

7

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. However, “[o]n

8

motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by

9

these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (I) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative

10

or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,

11

or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

12
For the Northern District of California

Subject to the limitations imposed by subsection (b)(2)(c), under Rule 26, “[p]arties may obtain

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery

13

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

14

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the

15

discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

16

In addition, upon a showing of “good cause,” a court may “protect a party or person from

17

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in discovery by, among other

18

things: “(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery; (B) specifying terms, including time and place,

19

for the disclosure or discovery; (C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by

20

the party seeking discovery; [or] (D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of

21

disclosure or discovery to certain matters. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The party seeking a protective

22

order has the burden of showing that the protection is warranted. In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635

23

F.3d at 1357. Generally, good cause requires the moving party to show that specific prejudice or

24

harm will result if the protective order is not issued. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 384 F.3d 822, 826 (9th

25

Cir. 2004). And, in this context, the courts administer a balancing test of the conflicting interests

26

between the protection of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the broad mandate

27

of the admissibility of information in discovery conferred by Rule 26(b)(1). See, e.g., Brown Bag

28

Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1472 (9th Cir. 1992).
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

8

IV. DISCUSSION

1
2
3

A. The Deposition of Ms. Farrell
The court addresses Ms. Farrell’s deposition first. In the parties’ May 22, 2012 joint discovery

“coworkers,” “has been accused of misconduct or investigated or charged with any misconduct.”

6

5/22/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 37 at 2, 3. Mr. Karr did not challenge Defendant’s description as

7

inaccurate or unclear. See generally id. Because the court understood Defendant’s statement to

8

mean that there is no evidence, or even a suggestion, that Ms. Farrell ever committed misconduct

9

(and because Mr. Karr said nothing in this regard), the court found that Mr. Karr had not shown that

10

documents pertaining to Ms. Farrell are relevant to this action. 5/31/2012 Order, ECF No. 41 at 11.

11

Accordingly, the court ruled that Defendant did not need to produce documents related to her. Id.

12
For the Northern District of California

letter brief, Defendant stated that it “has no record that [Ms. Farrell],” one of Mr. Karr’s

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

Now, though, Mr. Karr states in the parties’ June 4, 2012 joint letter that he “has information”

13

that “in 2010 or 2011” Ms. Farrell may have abandoned her post without permission but was never

14

charged within misconduct or disciplined. 6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42 at 5. This, Mr. Karr

15

argues, is an example of an employee similarly situated to Mr. Karr who was treated much more

16

leniently than he was (i.e., she was not investigated or charged for misconduct but he was). Id. at 4-

17

5. Presumably to find out more about her possible misconduct and its consequences, Mr. Karr wants

18

to depose her.

19

Defendant argues that Ms. Farrell’s deposition is inappropriate for two reasons. Id. at 5. First,

20

Defendant argues that Ms. Farrell is not similarly situated to Mr. Karr simply because she holds

21

different position than Mr. Karr did at the time of his discipline. Id. The court found a similar

22

argument persuasive in its prior order (Defendant argued that Mr. Patrick Burke held “a different

23

position[] with [a] very different job description[]” than Mr. Karr), but in that instance, Mr. Karr did

24

not challenge Defendant’s argument in any way. See 5/22/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 37 at 2-3;

25

5/31/2012 Order, ECF No. 41 at 11. Here, Defendant’s language is not nearly so strong (“Ms.

26

Farrell is a CBP Officer, a non-supervisory position, with different duties and responsibilities than

27

[Mr. Karr] had as a Supervisory CBP Officer.”), and Mr. Karr disputes that this means that Ms.

28

Farrell is not similarly situated to Mr. Karr. See 6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42 at 5. Indeed, the
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

9

1

court’s previously-cited authority suggests that a different position, alone, is not enough to establish

2

that an employee is not similarly situated to another. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349

3

F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (Generally, in the Ninth Circuit, “individuals are similarly situated

4

when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.”) (emphasis added). The court appreciates

5

that Ms. Farrell apparently has different job responsibilities than Mr. Karr does (checking cargo

6

versus the kind of supervisory job that allows contact with representatives of foreign countries or the

7

granting waivers to foreign nationals to enter the country), but she is a “CBP Officer,” and that does

8

not necessarily render her “not similarly situated” to a “CBP Supervisor” under Vasquez.

is not relevant to this action. 6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42 at 5. The court does not agree. As

11

noted above, the court previously understood (or perhaps misunderstood) the situation to be that

12
For the Northern District of California

Second, Defendant argues that, because of the court’s 5/31/2012 Order, Ms. Farrell’s testimony

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

there was no suggestion that Ms. Farrell had ever committed misconduct, not that she simply had not

13

been formally accused, investigated, or charged with misconduct. That is why the court found

14

documents pertaining to her to be irrelevant. In light of Mr. Karr’s statement that he has information

15

otherwise (and in light of the court’s new understanding of the situation), the court finds that her

16

testimony is relevant—at least under the broad definition of relevance under the discovery

17

rules—and that Mr. Karr should get to depose her. The court also notes that Defendant offered on

18

May 25, 2012 and May 30, 2012 (i.e., prior to the court’s 5/31/2012 Order) to produce Ms. Farrell

19

for deposition. 6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42 at 2. Again, it was part of an offered

20

compromise, but given the Vasquez standard and the court’s previous misunderstanding, the court

21

orders Ms. Farrell’s deposition.

22

Accordingly, Defendant shall produce Ms. Farrell for deposition within 14 days from the date of

23

this order. The parties shall meet and confer to agree upon a mutually-convenient date, time, and

24

location.

25

B. Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deponent

26
27
28

The court next addresses the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Mr. Karr’s revised deposition notice
states that he seeks to depose:
Defendant’s employee(s) or representative(s) who is (are) most knowledgeable about
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

10

1
2
3

the investigation of allegations of misconduct (except for misconduct concerning time
and attendance, or alcohol or drug issues, and those involving incidents that led to
personal injury or property damage) and disciplinary actions taken or not taken
against Customs and Border Protection officers, supervisors and managers under
Director, Field Operations Richard Vigna since January 2004, including, but not
limited to those listed below regarding the referenced incident or incidents:

4
5
6

a. The incidents in which Patrick Burke was accused of (a) using CBP cameras at
San Francisco International Airport to zoom in on women’s body parts in or about
2006-2007; (b) asking CBP personnel at San Francisco International Airport to pick
up or escort his wife in or about 2005-2009; and (c) showing a photo of a penis to
CBP employee Doreen Johnson in or about 2009-2010.

7
8

b. The incident in which Sue Fiust was accused of asking CBP employee Wendy
Coleman to change a TECS report to include incorrect information about the search
of a male passenger in or about 2006-2007;

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

c. The incident in which Hyang Sock Farrell was accused of improperly abandoning
her job of inspecting parcels at the West Bay Cargo Area in or about 2010-2011;
d. The incident in which, in or about 2009-2010, CBP employee Jerel Datoc was
found to have illegally modified a handgun to become a semi-automatic handgun
and/or improperly filed down the handgun’s serial number; and
e. The incident in which Troy Blackburn was alleged to have stolen up to $100,000
at San Francisco International Airport in or about 2011-2012.

14
15

6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42 at 2-3.

16

Defendant objects to producing a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent on these topics, which it contends are

17

overly broad in light of the court’s 5/31/2012 Order. The court mostly agrees with this position. In

18

its prior order, the court found that Mr. Burke was not similarly situated to Mr. Karr because,

19

according to Defendant’s unchallenged description, Mr. Burke held “a different position[] with [a]

20

very different job description[]” than Mr. Karr. 5/31/2012 Order, ECF No. 41 at 11 (citing Vasquez,

21

349 F.3d at 641). The court also found that Ms. Fiust and Mr. Datoc were not similarly situated to

22

Mr. Karr because, again according to Defendant’s unchallenged description, Mr. Karr had been

23

disciplined twice before the discipline at issue here. Id. Because of these previous findings, it

24

makes sense to preclude Mr. Karr from seeking to depose a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent about

25

individuals who are not relevant to this action.

26

It is a different answer with respect to Ms. Farrell. Given the new clarity surrounding Ms.

27

Farrell and the court’s decision to allow Mr. Karr to depose her, the court believes that it makes

28

sense to allow Mr. Karr to depose a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent about her as well. (The court notes,
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

11

1

though, that the deponent may or may not know anything about her situation, given Defendant’s

2

previous representation that she had never been formally accused, investigated, or charged with

3

misconduct.)

4

The court also finds Defendant’s proposed compromises to be reasonable and appropriate.

5

During the parties’ meet and confer efforts, Defendant offered to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent

6

to testify regarding “all formal discipline (excluding letters of reprimand) against Supervisory CBP

7

Officers (not Chiefs) in the SFO Field Office during the time Richard Vigna served as the DFO.”

8

6/4/2012 Joint Letter, ECF No. 42 at 4. The deponent would also “be prepared to talk about the

9

charges, the proposed discipline, and the decision[s] that issued,” but would not discuss “the

and decision letters related to all formal discipline (excluding letters of reprimand) against

12
For the Northern District of California

investigations.” Id. Defendant also offered to produce to Mr. Karr “redacted copies of the proposal

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Supervisory CBP Officers (not against Chiefs or non-supervisory Officers) in the SFO Field Office

13

during the time Richard Vigna served as the DFO.” Id. These letters “will indicate the charges, the

14

proposed discipline, the actual discipline, and the proposing and deciding officials.” Id.

15

Accordingly, Defendant shall produce the redacted proposal and decision letters mentioned

16

above and a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for deposition within 14 days from the date of this order. The

17

Rule 30(b)(6) deponent need only discuss the topics consistent with this order.

18
19

V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, within 14 days from the date of this order, Defendant shall produce: (1)

20

redacted proposal and decision letters described herein, (2) Ms. Farrell for deposition; and (3) a Rule

21

30(b)(6) deponent to discuss topics consistent with this order.

22

This disposes of ECF No. 42.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: June 14, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
C 11-02207 LB
ORDER

12