Hamilton v. RadioShack Corporation

Filing 33

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER 27 , 32 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 10/31/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
WILLIAM HAMILTON,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,

No. C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
13

[ECF Nos. 27 and 32]
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff William Hamilton and Defendant RadioShack Corporation filed a joint discovery letter

17

in which the parties discussed whether RadioShack must produce documents pertaining to all

18

complaints made about Basem Aybef that allege his having subjected any employees or third parties

19

to harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation or only those complaints that allege age

20

discrimination. Joint Letter, ECF No. 27 at 1-3 (setting forth Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 10 & 11 and

21

Defendant’s responses).1

22
23

At the case management conference on October 13, 2011, the court addressed this issue. The
court expressed its view that the inquiry as to scope is fact specific2 and, in this context, all

24
25
26

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
2

27
28

See Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Mar. Corp., 163 F.R.D. 584, 589 (C.D.Cal.1995)
(“In recent years, the courts have routinely ordered the production of personnel files of third parties
in employment discrimination and police brutality cases.”); but see El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn.
v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345-46 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (non-party’s personnel file was
C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

1

complaints against Aybef from the last ten years must be produced unless RadioShack produced

2

evidence that producing these complaints would be unduly burdensome. In its updated case

3

management statement, Defendant conceded that producing all complaints would not be unduly

4

burdensome. Updated Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 32 at 2. Accordingly, the court

5

ORDERS RadioShack to produce all complaints against Aybef made in the past ten years. See

6

generally Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Sup.Ct., 137 Cal.4th 579, 595 (2006)

7

(“[D]oubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.”).

8

In the updated case management conference statement, citing privacy concerns, RadioShack

9

requested that the names and other identifying information of the complainants be redacted, at least

the information and that an employee can have no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning his

12
For the Northern District of California

at this stage, if the court ordered the complaints produced. Id. at 6. Hamilton argues that it needs

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

or her participation in an employer’s legally required investigation of allegations of workplace

13

harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Id. at 4.

14

Hamilton’s cited legal authorities do not support its position that an employee has no reasonable

15

expectation of privacy regarding his or her workplace complaints. A person’s work history (e.g.,

16

names of employers, dates of employment, job titles, full or part-time — all of which presumably are

17

implicated by the workplace complaints) is protected by a right of privacy. See Alch v. Sup.Ct., 165

18

Cal.4th 1412, 1426-1427 (2008). Also, confidential personnel files at a person’s place of

19

employment are within a zone of privacy. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Sup.Ct.,

20

119 Cal.3d 516, 528-530 (1981). And so, at this stage, in recognition of these interests and in order

21

to manage the costs of the discovery process, the court ORDERS that RadioShack may produce

22

redacted versions of the complaints.

23

But these privacy rights are not absolute. See Britt v. Sup.Ct., 20 Cal.3d 844, 855 (1978); see

24

also Crab Addison, Inc. v. Sup.Ct.,169 Cal.4th 958, 974 (2008) (requiring employer to disclose

25

contact information for employees who were potential class members even if they had signed a form

26

stating they did not consent to release of such information based on public policy favoring class

27
28
protected by right to privacy in employment discrimination case).
C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

2

1

actions to enforce employees’ statutory wage and overtime rights). And the court has determined

2

that all complaints filed against Aybef within the past ten years are relevant and the information

3

contained within might be necessary for the fair resolution of the case. Moreover, a “protective

4

order is a safeguard for the protection of information admittedly subject to privacy concerns.” Alch,

5

165 Cal.App.4th at 1427. Accordingly, if Hamilton determines that the identifying information for

6

specific complainants is necessary, the court ORDERS RadioShack to produce unredacted versions

7

of the complaints subject to an appropriate protective order.

8

This disposes of ECF Nos. 27 and 32.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: October 31, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

C 11-00888 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

3