Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. et al
Filing
67
Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse Re: RFP Dispute 58 . (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2021)
Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 67 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
KIMBERLY EMERSON,
Plaintiff,
7
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
8
9
10
Case No. 20-cv-08607-YGR (AGT)
IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 58
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Kimberly Emerson worked as a supervisor for Iron Mountain in Livermore, California.
12
While on the tail end of an approved medical leave, she alleges that Iron Mountain removed her
13
from her position. Once removed, she says that Iron Mountain didn’t contact her to see if on-the-
14
job accommodations or an extended leave of absence would have allowed her to return to work.
15
Instead, the company fired her. She alleges that in taking these actions, Iron Mountain, among other
16
things, discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of her disabilities, race, and gender.
17
During discovery, Emerson served a variety of RFPs on Iron Mountain. Among them were
18
four that requested documents related to other complaints made by employees against the company.
19
Iron Mountain declined to produce the requested documents, leading Emerson to ask the Court for
20
an order compelling Iron Mountain’s production.
21
For ease of giving the parties’ guidance, the Court has divided the requested documents into
22
several categories and will evaluate those categories instead of the RFPs themselves. Some of these
23
Court-delineated categories merge portions of two or more RFPs together. The categories are
24
intended to cover all of the documents in question.
25
26
27
28
Category No. 1: all documents that constitute, describe, identify or
refer to any formal or informal complaints or allegations of disabilityor race-related discrimination, retaliation, or harassment made against
Gia Allen, Michael Mahoney, Michelle Coffey, Sarah Rook, Rachel
Lechinsky, Theresa Wall, or George Rubi.
See Dkt. 58-1, RFPs 28–29, 31.
Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 67 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 5
The seven listed persons are current or former Iron Mountain officials who allegedly played
2
a role in the adverse actions taken against Emerson. They include Emerson’s former manager,
3
second-level manager, and one or more HR employees. See Dkt. 58 at 2–3. If other disability- or
4
race-related complaints or allegations have been lodged against these officials, that evidence may
5
be relevant to Emerson’s claims. It could be used, for example, to establish the officials’ motives
6
in terminating Emerson. Cf. Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The sexual
7
harassment of others, if shown to have occurred, is relevant and probative of Caruso’s general
8
attitude of disrespect toward his female employees . . . . That attitude is relevant to the question of
9
[his] motive for discharging [the plaintiff].”). “[C]ourts have routinely sanctioned use of this ‘me
10
too’ type of evidence.” Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Found. of L.A. &
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
Ventura Ctys., 173 Cal. App. 4th 740, 760 (2009). It won’t always be admitted at trial: admission
12
“depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s
13
circumstances and theory of the case.” Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388
14
(2008). But at a minimum, because of its potential relevance, “me too” evidence of the kind
15
requested is discoverable. No case cited by Iron Mountain holds otherwise. Iron Mountain will
16
thus be required to produce all documents that come within the terms of Category No. 1.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Category No. 2: all documents that don’t fit within Category No. 1
but that constitute, describe, identify, or refer to any formal or
informal complaints, allegations, or observations of inappropriate or
unlawful conduct involving Gia Allen, Michael Mahoney, Michelle
Coffey, Sarah Rook, Rachel Lechinsky, Theresa Wall, or George
Rubi.
See Dkt. 58-1, RFP 31.
Like the first category, the second focuses on the seven terminating officials. But the second
23
category is broader.
It extends to documents that constitute, describe, identify, or refer to
24
complaints, allegations, or “observations” of any “inappropriate or unlawful conduct” by these
25
officials, not just disability- or race-related discrimination, retaliation, or harassment. A wide
26
variety of documents could be responsive but irrelevant to Emerson’s claims. As examples, if co-
27
workers exchanged emails in which they observed that one of the seven listed officials parked in the
28
wrong parking space or put food waste in the recycling bin, those emails could be responsive as
2
Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 67 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 5
1
documents that describe “observations” of “inappropriate” conduct. Yet those emails would have
2
no bearing on Emerson’s claims.
3
On the other hand, other documents in Category No. 2 could be relevant for impeachment
purposes.
5
reimbursement form, that fact would be probative of the official’s character for untruthfulness, and
6
documents describing the censure would come within the terms of Category No. 2. This category,
7
then, does include potentially relevant documents, but it is overbroad. As a result, Iron Mountain
8
will be required to produce only a subset of documents that fall within it. The company must
9
produce all documents that constitute, describe, identify, or refer to any formal complaints,
10
disciplinary action, or reprimands directed at any of the seven listed officials. The discovery of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
For example, if one of the seven officials was censured for lying on a travel-
these documents, but not the others coming within Category No. 2, is “proportional to the needs of
12
the case.” FRCP 26(b)(1).
13
14
15
16
17
Category No. 3: all documents that identify or refer to any formal or
informal complaints or allegations of disability- or race-related
discrimination, retaliation, or harassment made against any Iron
Mountain employee by any person employed by the company in
California, at any time from January 1, 2015, through the present.
See Dkt. 58-1, RFPs 28–29.
18
Category No. 3 builds upon Category No. 1. But while Category No. 1 focuses on
19
complaints and allegations of disability- or race-related discrimination, retaliation, or harassment
20
made against the seven terminating officials, Category No. 3 covers the same types of complaints
21
and allegations, but made against any Iron Mountain employee by any person employed by the
22
company in California during a seven-year period.
23
Emerson hasn’t persuasively explained why this more expansive category of discovery is
24
reasonably tailored to the facts of her case. If a complaint of disability-related discrimination was
25
made against an Iron Mountain supervisor in San Diego, in 2017, documents referring to that
26
complaint would come within Category No. 3. But if that San Diego-based supervisor played no
27
role in the actions taken against Emerson, then documents referring to that complaint would have
28
limited (if any) probative value in Emerson’s case.
3
Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 67 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 5
In a proposed amended complaint, Emerson does allege that Iron Mountain had “a pattern
2
and practice” of discriminating against disabled employees. Dkt. 36-2, Proposed FAC ¶ 25.1 And
3
conceivably, the hypothetical San Diego-based complaint could be used to support this allegation.
4
To date, however, Emerson has identified only one example of this alleged pattern and practice; and
5
that example involves a former employee who, like Emerson, worked at Iron Mountain’s Livermore
6
location. See id. ¶ 18. Given the lack of concrete allegations supporting a pattern and practice of
7
discrimination extending outside of Livermore and throughout California, the Court won’t require
8
Iron Mountain to conduct state-wide “me too” discovery at this time. Emerson hasn’t demonstrated
9
that this state-wide discovery is “proportional to the needs of the case.” FRCP 26(b)(1); see also
10
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District courts need not condone the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
use of discovery to engage in ‘fishing expeditions.’”) (simplified). Iron Mountain need not produce
12
documents falling within Category No. 3.
13
Category No. 4: all documents constituting the face sheet of any
complaint filed in any court in California on or after January 1, 2015,
by any employee or former employee naming Iron Mountain.
14
15
See Dkt. 58-1, RFP 38.
16
The Court also won’t compel Iron Mountain to produce documents within this final category.
17
Category No. 4 seeks state-wide “me too” discovery. Emerson, as noted above, hasn’t shown that
18
state-wide discovery of this kind is appropriate. The complaint face sheets that Emerson seeks are
19
also part of the public record. Emerson, then, should be able to obtain what she’s looking for even
20
without Iron Mountain’s help. She hasn’t established that the face sheets are less accessible to her
21
than to Iron Mountain. See FRCP 26(b)(1) (stating that courts should consider “the parties’ relative
22
access to relevant information” in evaluating whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the
23
case).
***
24
Consistent with the above, Iron Mountain, by September 24, 2021, must produce:
25
•
26
all documents in Category No. 1, as defined above; and
27
28
1
A motion for leave to amend the complaint is pending before Judge Gonzalez Rogers. See Dkt. 36.
4
Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 67 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 5
1
•
all documents that constitute, describe, identify, or refer to any formal
2
complaints, disciplinary action, or reprimands directed at Gia Allen,
3
Michael Mahoney, Michelle Coffey, Sarah Rook, Rachel Lechinsky,
4
Theresa Wall, or George Rubi (Category No. 2, in part).
5
Iron Mountain need not otherwise produce documents falling within Category Nos. 2–4.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: September 8, 2021
8
ALEX G. TSE
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?