Austin v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Filing 76

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse denying 54 Motion to Compel Discovery. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2023)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN,

Case No. 23-cv-00067-AGT

Plaintiff,
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 54
TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant.
The Court denies without prejudice George Jarvis Austin’s motion to compel Tesla Motors, Inc., to produce Austin’s personnel file. In employment cases alleging an adverse action,
like this case, the defendant must ordinarily produce the plaintiff’s personnel file “within 30
days after the defendant has submitted a responsive pleading or motion.” General Order 71,
Part 2, subsection (2)(d). But in this case, the question of whether the defendant is required to
produce the plaintiff’s personnel file relates to the merits of the case. Austin alleges that Tesla
violated state law by failing to provide him with “his entire personnel file.” Operative Compl.,
Dkt. 51 at 55 ¶ 1. And Tesla, in moving to dismiss Austin’s complaint, has asserted that Austin
was a contractor, not an employee, and that his claim for production of his personnel file, under
California Labor Code section 1198.5, lacks merit. See Mot., Dkt. 59 at 3, 7–10. Rather than

order Tesla to produce Austin’s personnel file at this time, if any such file exists, the Court will
first consider Tesla’s motion to dismiss, which is on calendar for a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2023
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge

2