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)

Download PDF
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

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?