Alejandro v. ST Micro Electronics, Inc

Filing 51

Interim Order on 40 Discovery Dispute Joint Report 1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/21/16. (hrllc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)

E-Filed 3/21/16

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JESSE ALEJANDRO,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01385-LHK (HRL)
INTERIM ORDER ON DISCOVERY
DISPUTE JOINT REPORT 1

v.
ST MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC,

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Defendant.

12

Jesse Alejandro (“Alejandro”) sues STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) for disability

13

discrimination and failure to provide medical leave time. Alejandro bases his claims on STM’s

14

decision to terminate his employment when he was allegedly incapacitated for several days by

15

depression, anxiety, and allergies. The parties dispute whether STM should produce “[a]ll text

16

messages . . . between [Alejandro] and [his former manager]” that were sent between September 4,

17

2012 and April 4, 2014. Dkt. No. 40 at 2. The parties filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report

18

(“DDJR”) 2 in order to seek judicial resolution of their dispute.

19

In DDJR 2 the parties do not clearly explain the scope of Alejandro’s requests for

20

production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 34(a)(1)(A). Alejandro asserts that

21

“[d]uring discovery” he requested the production of “[a]ll text messages” sent or received by the

22

phone STM had provided for Alejandro’s use until STM fired him. Dkt. No. 40 at 2. STM

23

asserts, in contrast, that Alejandro did not “mention” a “desire” for the production of “all text

24

messages between [Alejandro] and [his former manager]” until three days after fact discovery

25

closed. Dkt. No. 40 at 4. Neither party attempts to clarify the potential inconsistency between

26

these key assertions. It is therefore unclear to the court whether Alejandro made a timely request

27

for production under FRCP 34 that might provide a basis for the relief Alejandro seeks in DDJR 2.

28

The undersigned notes that his standing order expressly permits parties to submit requests

1

for production and responses to those requests where, as here, the requests for production are “in

2

issue” in a DDJR. No later than March 23, 2016, Alejandro shall file any timely request for

3

production he made under FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) that he believes provides a basis for the production

4

of “[a]ll text messages . . . between [Alejandro] and [his former manager] during his

5

employment[.]” If Alejandro files any request for production, then no later than March 24, 2016,

6

STM shall file the response it made to that request under FRCP 34(b)(2).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/21/16

9
10
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2