Thompson et al v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc et al

Filing 128

ORDER regarding search terms and deposition topics. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on March 11, 2014. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 JEMAR THOMPSON, and others, Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 Case No. 12-cv-00391 NC ORDER REGARDING SEARCH TERMS AND DEPOSITION TOPICS v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 98, 102, 107, 112 C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC., and others, Defendants. 18 19 The parties have struggled in their efforts to communicate and cooperate in the 20 discovery process in this employment discrimination action. As a result, the Court is now 21 tasked with selecting e-discovery search terms and 30(b)(6) deposition topics—an endeavor 22 better left to the parties themselves. 23 First, the parties disagree as to whether deposition topics and email searches should 24 be limited to the time period from 2009 until present. Defendants argue that this is the only 25 time period relevant, because plaintiffs’ claims stemming from acts prior to 2009 are 26 outside the statutes of limitations of FEHA and Title VII. The Court has not yet ruled on 27 defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations issue. 28 However, regardless of that ruling, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ request for information Case No. 12-cv-00391 NC ORDER REGARDING SEARCH TERMS AND DEPOSITION TOPICS 1 prior to 2009 related to discriminatory training or promotion of black employees at C&H is 2 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, at a minimum as 3 background evidence. See Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2002) 4 (finding that evidence of discrimination that took place outside the limitations period was 5 nonetheless “relevant as background and may be considered by the trier of fact in assessing 6 the defendant’s liability for plaintiffs’ denials of promotion [that occurred within the 7 statutory period]”). Therefore, the Court orders deposition topics and e-discovery searches 8 to cover the time period from 2002 until present. 9 As for the search terms, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ proposed terms are overbroad 10 and that reviewing discovery based on those terms would be unduly burdensome for 11 defendants. Plaintiffs’ list includes hundreds of search terms without any connectors or 12 limitations. The Court finds defendants’ proposed list to be fair and appropriately tailored 13 to the facts and scope of the case. Defendants’ proposed protocol is equally reasonable. 14 Therefore, the Court orders defendants to perform e-discovery searches as set forth in their 15 proposal at docket entry 112. Defendants must begin the production immediately and 16 report to the Court on the estimated date of completion within seven days of this order. 17 Lastly, the parties disagree as to 30(b)(6) topics. In light of the Court’s ruling that 18 information related to racial discrimination at C&H before 2009 is discoverable, the Court 19 requires that the parties revisit their list of disputed topics. The parties are ordered to 20 submit to the Court, within seven days of this order, a chart listing only the disputed 21 30(b)(6) topics for C&H deponents, along with a short statement from each party as to their 22 respective positions for each topic. The Court will rule on whether ASR is an appropriate 23 defendant, and therefore an appropriate deponent, as soon as possible. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Date: March 11, 2014 26 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-00391 NC ORDER REGARDING SEARCH TERMS AND DEPOSITION TOPICS 2

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?