Sanders v. LaHood

Filing 45

DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 41 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)

1
*E-FILED: May 29, 2013*

2
3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

BOBBY SANDERS,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

No. C11-04391 HRL
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

12
13

RAYMOND LAHOOD, SECRETARY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,

(Dkt. No. 41)

14
15
16

Defendant.
____________________________________/
Bobby Sanders, a former air traffic controller trainee, sues the United States Department of

17

Transportation claiming age, race, and gender discrimination, as well as discrimination for engaging

18

in protected activities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34.

19

The parties bring to the Court a discovery issue over the production of the employment

20

training records of various third parties. Following a series of meet and confer efforts, plaintiff has

21

identified a handful of individuals, whom he contends are similarly situated to himself. Plaintiff

22

seeks the training records of these individuals. Though defendant disputes that these individuals are

23

similarly situated to plaintiff, the parties have agreed on a reasonable scope for the requested

24

discovery, and agree that a Court order is necessary to relieve defendant of any obligations imposed

25

by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).

26

The Privacy Act prohibits federal government agencies from disclosing “any record [about

27

an individual] which is contained in a system of records.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). However, the

28

Privacy Act allows for disclosure “pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id.

1

In addition to the protection afforded by the Privacy Act, “Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a

2

constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests.” Soto v.

3

City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D.Cal.1995). “Resolution of a privacy objection or

4

request for a protective order requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the

5

privacy right asserted.” Id.

6

Here, the specific information requested by plaintiff appears to be directly relevant to his

7

claims, and the Protective Order in place in this case should adequately protect any confidential

8

information produced in response to the narrowed requests. Accordingly, the Court orders

9

defendant Raymond LaHood, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, to produce the

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

following documents to plaintiff within 10 days of the date of this order (or, for item 4, below,

11

within 10 days of the date that plaintiff identifies the 10 controllers, whichever is later):

12

1. Training documents from September 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 relating to

13

developmental controller Lisa Schoenecker;

14

2. Training documents from August 27, 2005 to January 31, 2008 relating to developmental

15

controller Lynn Santos;

16

3. Training documents from August 27, 2005 to January 31, 2008 relating to developmental

17

controller Christopher Owens;

18

4. Training documents from August 27, 2005 to January 31, 2008, including but not limited

19

to documents relating to training failures, for up to 10 of the developmental controllers listed

20

in Exhibit 9 to Report of Investigation of plaintiff’s Equal Employment Opportunity

21

(“EEO”) complaint. Plaintiff may select up to 10 names from that list and shall do so no later

22

than May 31, 2013;

23

5. A statement under penalty of perjury by an FAA employee stating that Dena Thomas

24

became a Certified Professional Controller prior to August 27, 2005, i.e., prior to plaintiff’s

25

settlement of a previous EEO complaint.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: May 29, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

1

C11-04391 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Christopher D Vaughn

3

Claire T. Cormier

4

Richard Angelo Kutche

[e-mail]

5

Richard Dean Schramm

[e-mail]

6

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3