Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse Re: Rogs Dispute 59 . (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2021)

Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 68 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2

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. 59

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This order resolves the pending disputes over Emerson’s interrogatories.

12

1. Iron Mountain must answer Rog 3 in part. The company needs to identify the people

13

who participated in the decision to terminate Emerson, and then describe the role each of them

14

played in that decision. The company doesn’t need to describe “in detail each [such] person’s . . .

15

communications regarding [Emerson’s] separation from her employment.” Dkt. 59-1 at 3. Emerson

16

can seek that detail through more efficient means: she can depose the decisionmakers and seek their

17

communications through document requests.

18

2. Iron Mountain must amend its response to Rog 5 to identify “each and every essential

19

function of the project supervisor position held by [Emerson] in 2019.” Dkt. 59-1 at 4. Essential

20

functions are finite in number, so a fulsome response shouldn’t be too burdensome. Iron Mountain’s

21

prior response, in which it simply referred to a previously produced copy of the job description,

22

wasn’t sufficient. It’s possible that not every essential function of the role was listed in the job

23

description, and that certain duties listed in the description weren’t essential functions. If Iron

24

Mountain intends to rely on the job description in answering Rog 5, it must confirm that all essential

25

functions of the position were listed in the job description, and it must identify any job

26

responsibilities listed in the description that weren’t essential functions.

27

3. Iron Mountain need not respond further to Rog 6. The company’s response identified the

28

people who performed the functions of the project supervisor position during the identified time

Case 4:20-cv-08607-YGR Document 68 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2

1

period. See Dkt. 5-1 at 5–6. If Emerson wants to drill down further to determine precisely who did

2

what, she can obtain that information through depositions and document requests.

3

4. Iron Mountain must amend its responses to Rogs 9 and 12 to answer whether, during the

4

identified time periods, it would have been “an undue burden” for the company “to hold [Emerson’s]

5

project supervisor position for her return.”

6

interrogatories, see FRCP 33(a)(2), and Iron Mountain didn’t fully answer them.

Dkt. 59-1 at 6, 9.

These are valid contention

5. If Iron Mountain answers “yes” to Rog 9, it must amend its responses to Rogs 10–11. If

8

Iron Mountain answers “yes” to Rog 12, it must amend its responses to Rogs 13–14. For Rogs 10

9

and 13, the company need not state “each and every fact” that supports its contentions, but only the

10

“material or principal facts” that do. IBP, Inc. v. Mercantile Bank of Topeka, 179 F.R.D. 316, 321

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

(D. Kan. 1998).
***

12
13

Iron Mountain must comply with this order and amend its responses on or before September

14

28, 2021. Emerson’s request for leave to move for attorneys’ fees is denied; but to be clear, the

15

Court’s in-person or videoconference meet-and-confer requirement isn’t optional. See AGT Civil

16

Standing Order § VII.B.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2021

19
20
ALEX G. TSE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2