Wellens et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 56 Letter. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/30/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SARA WELLENS, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00581-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE

9
10

DAIICHI SANKYO, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 56

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Currently before the Court is a discovery dispute over the temporal scope of discovery and
the scope of discovery pertaining to discrimination complaints. Docket No. 56.

14

As to the temporal scope, plaintiffs ask the Court to compel defendant to produce

15

discovery from 2008 on, in order to allow plaintiffs to develop evidence of hostility, intent, and

16

notice with respect to plaintiffs’ discrimination and Equal Pay Act claims. Defendants have

17

produced some of the requested data (for any employee who was employed during the class

18

period) but argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to personnel data relating to other individuals

19

whose claims are timed barred and who are not included within the class definition. For the

20

reasons discussed in the Court’s September 18, 2013 telephonic conference with the parties, the

21

Court ORDERS defendant to produce discovery from 2008 on. The requested discovery is

22

relevant to plaintiffs’ claims and defendants have failed to demonstrate why the production is

23

unduly burdensome. If, after defendant runs the ESI search terms agreed to by the parties,

24

defendant can make a particularized showing that for certain categories of responsive documents

25

review and production would be unduly burdensome, they may do so.

26

As to the scope of discovery pertaining to discrimination complaints, defendant has agreed

27

to produce all actual discrimination complaints, but not the “related” documents, including notes,

28

investigations, ensuing discipline, etc. Plaintiffs argue that production of the “related to”

documents is essential for their claim that defendant failed to comply with its own EEO policies,

2

necessary for commonality/typicality issues that will arise at class certification, and efficient

3

(because defendant will be reviewing the complaint files in the first instance to determine whether

4

the complaint is related to discrimination). Defendant argues that production of all related

5

documents at this stage defeats the purpose of phasing discovery. Defendant also contends that

6

after reviewing the complaints, the parties will be able to intelligibly negotiate which case files for

7

specific complaints should be produced. Having considered the argument raised, the Court

8

ORDERS defendant to produce the documents related to the discrimination complaints that are

9

maintained in hard copy and/or in a centralized location. The Court sees no efficiency in phasing

10

the discovery between the discrimination complaints and their related documents when the related

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

documents are presumably located in the same place as the complaints themselves and will be

12

readily accessible to defendants. As to complaints that are located only as a result of an ESI

13

search, and not maintained in hard copy or at a central location, defendants do not at this time need

14

to conduct further searches for related documents but may be required to do so upon plaintiffs’

15

further request.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2013
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2