U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER re 57 First Discovery Letter Brief regarding HR Contact Records filed by Umme-Hani Khan. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/25/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

9

Plaintiff,

Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF (DKT. NO. 57)

and

11

United States District Court

10

Case No.: 11-cv-03162-YGR

UMME-HANI KHAN,

12

Plaintiff-Intervenor,
13
14
15
16
17

vs.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.
d/b/a HOLLISTER CO., HOLLISTER CO.
CALIFORNIA, LLC,
Defendants.

18
19
20

The Court has reviewed the Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Plaintiff-Intervenor’s

21

Requests for Production. (Dkt. No. 57.) At issue are four requests for production, which seek

22

documents: (i) relating “to all employee requests, made in any of respondent’s stores, to deviate from

23

the Look Policy” (Request No. 20); (ii) all documents that “reflect or otherwise relate to Hollister’s

24

consideration and/or disposition of the requests” (Request No. 21); (iii) all documents that “reflect or

25

otherwise relate to all employee requests, made in any Hollister store, for accommodation of religious

26

attire” (Request No. 22); and (iv) documents relating to “Hollister’s consideration and/or disposition

27

of the requests for accommodation of religious attire” (Request No. 23). According to the parties, the

28

1

only remaining issue with regard to these requests “relates to records from January 3, 2011 to the

2

present regarding requests to deviate from the Look Policy unrelated to head scarves.”

3

Having reviewed the letter brief and the positions of the parties, the Court DENIES Plaintiff-

4

Intervenor’s requests. Plaintiff-Intervenor and Plaintiff have failed to establish that the records at

5

issue are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to Plaintiff’s disparate

6

treatment claims. The requests are overly broad to the extent that they seek documents relating to any

7

request to deviate from the policy unrelated to head scarves. The requests are also overly broad as to

8

time, to the extent that they seek documents that post-date Plaintiff’s termination date by anywhere

9

from nine to thirty months.

Northern District of California

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 57.

11

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: October 25, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

2