Zaparolli v. American Airlines Group Inc.

Filing 48

Discovery Order re ECF Nos. 46 and 47. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 4/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ISABELLE ZAPAROLLI,

12

Case No. 15-cv-02095-LB

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER RE LIMITED-DUTY
EMPLOYEES

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC.,

15

Re: ECF Nos. 46 and 47

Defendant.

16
17
18

The parties filed updated discovery briefs about employees with lifting restrictions. (See ECF
Nos. 46 and 47.1)

19

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure describes the basic scope of:

20

24

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).2 Applying this standard, and for the reasons stated previously on the record

21
22
23

26
27
28

1

Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to
the ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of documents.
2
The main text sets out the current version of Rule 26(b), which was amended effective December
ORDER (No. 15-cv-02095-LB)

1

and in the order at ECF No. 45, the court will consider whether short depositions of CSAs

2

Elizabeth Shumate and Cynthia Pugliaresi are appropriate. Given that they are on medical leave,

3

the court is not certain what burdens might exist that might affect the court’s assessment of

4

whether the depositions are proportional to the needs of the case. Moreover, the court does not

5

have information about what documents American Airlines already produced and what more it

6

might produce under a protective order that might obviate the need for a deposition and also affect

7

the court’s proportionality inquiry.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Under the circumstances, the court directs the parties to confer, and if they cannot agree on an
approach, offer their best compromises in a short updated discovery brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

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

1, 2015. “[I]t is well established that a court generally applies the law in effect at the time of its
decision, and that if the law changes, . . . the . . . court applies the new rule.” Lambert v. Blodgett,
393 F.3d 943, 973 n. 21 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Thorpe v. Durham Hous. Auth., 393 U.S. 268, 281
(1969)).
2
ORDER (No. 15-cv-02095-LB)