Alejandro v. ST Micro Electronics, Inc

Filing 55

Order on 40 Discovery Dispute Joint Report 1 signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)

E-Filed 3/28/16

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)
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. STM defends itself, in part, with the argument that Alejandro

16

did not provide STM notice of his disability, his need for accommodation, or his need for medical

17

leave. Dkt. No. 40 at 2. The parties dispute in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) 1

18

whether STM should produce “[a]ll text messages . . . between [Alejandro] and [his former

19

manager]” that were sent between September 4, 2012 and April 4, 2014. Dkt. No. 40 at 2.

20

Discussion

21

The parties met on February 10, 2016 to discuss whether STM should produce “[a]ll

22

messages from Plaintiff’s work email account.” The parties were unable to resolve their email

23

dispute at that time and so they prepared to submit a DDJR. Alejandro, meanwhile, deposed his

24

former manager Sean McCale (“McCale”) on February 17, 2016, and McCale admitted that he had

25

received “a text message with links to websites with information on [Alejandro]’s condition”

26

before Alejandro had been fired. See Dkt. No. 40 at 3. On the next day, Alejandro sent STM an

27

email that proposed a compromise for the email dispute. Alejandro’s email also requested the

28

production of any yet-unproduced text messages that were sent between Alejandro and McCale

1

from September 4, 2012 to April 4, 2014.

2

STM asserts that “[t]he parties have agreed to the compromise on email production” that

3

was proposed by Alejandro on February 18. Dkt. No. 40 at 3. Alejandro’s portion of DDJR 1

4

describes past events that relate to the email dispute, but Alejandro does not address STM’s

5

assertion that parties have already agreed to resolve that dispute in the manner proposed by

6

Alejandro. Dkt. No. 40 at 3. The undersigned is therefore persuaded that the email dispute has

7

already been resolved by the parties and the court shall address only the text-message dispute.
STM asserts that McCale misspoke and that McCale does not, in fact, specifically

9

remember receiving any text message with links to informative websites until after Alejandro had

10

already been fired. Dkt. No. 40 at 4. STM argues McCale may have misremembered the contents

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

of an already-produced text message which invited McCale to look up information about

12

Alejandro’s conditions.

13

misremembering the timing of post-employment text messages that he received from Alejandro.

14

Dkt. No. 40 at 5.

15

Alejandro’s request, but STM speculates it might be unreasonably burdensome to produce the

16

“many hundreds or more text messages” that might exist and be responsive. Dkt. No. 40 at 5.

17

Lastly, STM argues Alejandro’s request is procedurally improper because the parties did not

18

discuss the text-message dispute in person as required by the undersigned’s Standing Order re:

19

Civil Discovery Disputes. STM therefore proposes that it produce, at most, the post-employment

20

text messages McCale may have had in mind when he gave his deposition testimony.

Dkt. No. 40 at 5.

STM also believes McCale may have been

STM does not know how many text messages would be responsive to

21

Alejandro justifies his request for “[a]ll text messages (not yet produced) between

22

[Alejandro] and McCale from 9/4/12 to 4/4/14” by referencing his second and third requests for

23

production (“RFP”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 34(a). Those RFPs timely

24

requested “[a]ll text messages sent to ST[M]’s mobile phone used by [Alejandro] during his

25

employment” and all text messages received by that same phone in that same timeframe. Dkt. No.

26

53 at 3. STM’s responses under FRCP 34(b) included boilerplate objections about undue burden,

27

overbreadth, irrelevance, and a low likelihood of the requested production leading to admissible

28

evidence. Dkt. No. 54 at 5. Nevertheless, STM also agreed in those responses to produce
2

1

“responsive documents from the relevant time period that are within its possession, custody, or

2

control to the extent such documents exist.” Dkt. No. 54 at 5.
STM has failed to persuade the court that STM should not produce the text messages

4

presently requested by Alejandro to the extent that any such text messages are responsive to

5

Alejandro’s second or third RFP. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The undersigned is persuaded that

6

Alejandro seeks text messages that would be significantly probative of the lack-of-notice defense

7

raised by STM. The court is also persuaded that the burden of producing text messages responsive

8

to the second or third RFPs would be proportional to the needs of this case: (1) any such text

9

message is relevant to establishing whether STM had notice of Alejandro’s conditions; (2) STM

10

has better access than Alejandro to any such text message; (3) the full set of the requested text

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

messages shall tend to establish or else refute STM’s lack-of-notice defense; and (4) STM merely

12

speculates that there might be hundreds of responsive text messages and that therefore the

13

production of those text messages might impose an indeterminate “burden” on STM. See Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

15

The court rejects the argument that Alejandro’s requested relief should be denied for lack

16

of an in-person discussion about the text-message dispute. Fact discovery had already been closed

17

for two days before McCale’s deposition gave Alejandro a reasonable basis to suspect that STM

18

might have withheld discoverable text messages responsive to past RFPs. The parties therefore,

19

under Civil Local Rule 37-3 and the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes,

20

had only a few days left to prepare and file DDJR 1. Under these circumstances the undersigned

21

finds good cause to excuse the lack of an in-person meeting.

22

The court therefore resolves the present discovery dispute in favor of Alejandro to the

23

extent that he seeks a specific sub-set of any unproduced text messages that are responsive to his

24

second and third RFPs. By April 5, 2016 STM shall produce the unproduced text messages, if

25

any, that satisfy each of the following four conditions: (1) they are in STM’s possession, custody,

26

or control; (2) they were sent between Alejandro and McCale; (3) they were sent or received

27

through the phone STM provided for Alejandro’s use; and (4) they were sent or received before

28
3

1
2
3
4

STM fired Alejandro.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/28/16

5
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
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
4