Saba v. UNISYS Corporation

Filing 40

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 35 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 30 Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FADI SABA,

12

No. C-14-01310 WHO (DMR)
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTERS [DOCKET NOS. 30, 35]

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

UNISYS CORP.,

15

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17

The parties filed joint discovery letter briefs on October 9 and 17, 2014 in which Plaintiff

18

Fadi Saba moves to compel Defendant Unisys Corporation (“Unisys”) to produce further discovery

19

responses and witness contact information. [Docket Nos. 30 (Oct. 9, 2014 Letter), 35 (Oct. 17, 2014

20

letter).] The court conducted a telephonic hearing on both matters on November 20, 2014. This

21

order summarizes the rulings made on the record at the hearing.

22
23
24

I. Motion to Compel (Docket No. 30)
A.

Category 1 (RFPs 12, 13)
The parties shall immediately meet and confer regarding search terms and quality control

25

measures as directed by the court. Defendant asserts that the current list of search terms yields 6700

26

documents, and that many of them are irrelevant. The court instructed the parties to engage in a

27

cooperative “quality control” process by jointly reviewing a sample of the irrelevant documents and

28

making adjustments to the search terms accordingly. If any dispute remains after meeting and

1

//

2

//

3

conferring, the parties shall file a joint letter that does not exceed two pages by no later than

4

December 2, 2014.

5

B.

6

Category 2 (RFPs 18-22)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel similar complaints involving the Global Windows & Cloud

7

Support Group is denied without prejudice. Defendant may limit its response to lawsuits or charges

8

involving allegations of refusal to accommodate a request for family medical leave, retaliation for

9

requesting and/or taking family medical leave, and retaliation for whistleblowing against Hartzler
and Buckner since 2009. Plaintiff may move to compel Defendant to expand its response to include

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

all responsive complaints made in the Global Windows & Cloud Support Group if he is able to

12

identify facts supporting a broader definition of the scope of relevant information.

13

C.

14

Category 3 (RFPs 44-46)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel job descriptions and salary/bonus structure information for

15

Bradley Young and Richard Digrigoli is granted. Defendant shall produce responsive documents by

16

December 1, 2014. To the extent that it has not already produced them, Defendant shall also

17

produce job descriptions as to the six other individuals listed in RFP 46 by December 1, 2014.

18

D.

19
20

Category 4 (RFPs 50-53)
Defendant shall expand its search for responsive documents to include the following five

custodians: Bob Ricci, Helen Baker, Josiah Hawks, Brian Socolovsky, and Ezra Gray.

21

II. Motion to Compel Witnesses’ Contact Information (Docket No. 35)

22

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce contact information for Christopher

23

Rusek, Hani Jaber, and Robert Black is granted. Defendant shall produce the contact information by

24

no later than December 1, 2014. Upon contacting any of these three witnesses, Plaintiff’s counsel

25

must: 1) identify himself and explain his role in this litigation; 2) inform the witness that he is not

26

obligated to speak with Plaintiff’s counsel; and 3) explain that Plaintiff’s counsel does not want the

27

witness to reveal any Unisys attorney-client communications learned directly or indirectly from an

28

attorney because Plaintiff’s counsel is not entitled to that information. If a witness begins to reveal

2

1

attorney-client privileged information to Plaintiff’s counsel, counsel must stop the witness from

2

revealing such information and immediately inform defense counsel.

3

RT

10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ER

H

9

Judg

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

R NIA

DONNA M. RYU
Ryu
United States Magistrate. Judge
onna M
eD

NO

8

FO

7

LI

Dated: November 21, 2014

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

6

UNIT
ED

5

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

4

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C