Ali v. eBay, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER GRANTING 64 EBAY INC.S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/29/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SYED NAZIM ALI,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

EBAY, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING EBAY INC.’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Re: ECF 64]

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-06589-BLF

Before the Court is Defendant eBay, Inc.’s (“eBay”) Motion for Partial Relief from

12
13

Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen’s Nondispositive Pretrial Order. Mot., ECF 64; Order, ECF

14

54. eBay sought relief from the Order as to three of the requests for production (“RFP”) at issue

15

in the parties’ July 16, 2018 discovery dispute. See ECF 54. Specifically, eBay challenged the

16

Order as to RFP Nos. 8, 9, and 10. This Court denied eBay’s motion as to RFP Nos. 9 and 10 in

17

full, and as to RFP No. 8 to the extent eBay challenged Judge van Keulen’s proportionality ruling.

18

See ECF 66. The Court ordered additional briefing on whether RFP No. 8, as modified by Judge

19

van Keulen, infringes on third-party employees’ privacy rights. See id. Plaintiff Syed Nazim Ali

20

(“Ali”) filed a response1 (Resp., ECF 68), and eBay replied (Reply, ECF 73). The Court has

21

reviewed the parties’ briefs in response to the Court’s order requiring additional briefing, eBay’s

22

Motion and exhibits, Judge van Keulen’s Order, and the parties’ discovery letters regarding the

23

dispute (ECF 47; ECF 52), which formed the basis for that Order. For the reasons that follow,

24

eBay’s Motion as to RFP No. 8 is GRANTED.

25

A district court may refer nondispositive pretrial matters to a magistrate judge under 28

26
27
28

1

In its order requiring additional briefing, this Court limited both sets of briefs to three pages.
eBay complied with this requirement, but Ali filed an eight-page brief. As such, this Court
considers only the first three pages of Ali’s Argument Section.

1

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The district court “may reconsider any pretrial matter under this

2

subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

3

contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). On review of a

4

nondispositive order, “the magistrate’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the

5

magistrate’s legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry

6

v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010). This standard is highly deferential—

7

the district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgment for that of the magistrate judge.

8

Grimes v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

Ali’s original RFP No. 8 requested production of any request made in the last five years by
an eBay employee or worker for a sit and stand desk, including production of the worker’s name,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

title, department, age, race, and national origin, as well as the names of the managers responsible

12

for fulfilling each request and eBay’s relevant policies. See ECF 64-1 at 8. In his discovery letter

13

in support of his RFPs, Ali argued that information produced in response to his RFPs would serve,

14

in part, as the “[f]oundation” to his ADA and failure to accommodate claims. See ECF 47 at 2.

15

Taking into account Ali’s pro se status, this argument clearly applies to ECF No. 8. Judge van

16

Keulen’s Order agreed in part, but modified Ali’s request, limiting it to requests for a sit and stand

17

desk received by eBay from May 23, 2016 to August 5, 2016 (Ali’s term of employment),

18

requiring production of information sufficient to identify the requesting individuals, and requiring

19

production of the relevant policies. Order at 3. Judge van Keulen did not explicitly consider the

20

privacy concerns raised by this request.

21

eBay argues in its Motion that the Order is improper for two reasons. See Mot. at 2–4.

22

The Court already rejected eBay’s first argument, see ECF 66, that the request is overbroad and

23

unduly burdensome because it targets all employee requests rather than just Ali’s alleged

24

request—that is, that the request requires production of evidence that is irrelevant and

25

disproportionate to the needs of the case, id. But eBay’s second argument (at issue here) is that

26

the request calls for production of information that may violate third-party employees’ privacy

27

rights. Id. at 3.

28

In his response, Ali relies only on the relevancy of the requested documents and their
2

1

materiality to his case; he does not address the countervailing privacy concerns. He argues that

2

these requests support a “key element” of his complaint because the “premise of the case is based

3

on Discrimination, ADA, Retaliation and Wrongful termination.” See Resp. at 3–4. He alleges

4

that “eBay is trying to hide that they deliberately retaliated and discriminated against him” by

5

ignoring his request and failing to provide accommodation. Id. at 4. He also argues that he will

6

be prejudiced without production of these documents and that Magistrate Judge van Keulen was

7

within her sound discretion in ordering production of these relevant documents. See id. at 4–5.

8

Finally, he notes there is a valid protective order in this case, which can keep the requests

9

“confidential,” to be used only in relation to this case. See id. at 4.
eBay responds, in relevant part,2 by stating that it has reviewed an “extraction” of the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

relevant requests and that they include “sensitive information about the medical reasons for the

12

request, including physical ailments, symptoms and/or specific medical diagnoses.” Reply at 1. It

13

also argues that the protective order is insufficient protection because it does not (and cannot)

14

allow for “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” review. Id. at 2.
Judge van Keulen seemingly limited her considerations to the relevancy and

15
16

proportionality of RFP No. 8. She did not explicitly consider the third-party privacy interests

17

implicated by this request. But in determining whether discovery of private information is

18

warranted, courts must apply a balancing test, weighing such factors as:
the type of record requested, the information it does or might contain, the potential
for harm in any subsequent non-consensual disclosure, the injury from disclosure to
the relationship in which the record was generated, the adequacy of safeguards to
prevent unauthorized disclosure, the degree of need for access, and whether there is
an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public
interest militating toward access.

19
20
21
22

Stallworth v. Brollini, 288 F.R.D. 439, 444 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing case law on federal

23

constitutional right to privacy); see also Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552 (2017)

24

(requiring courts to “balance the[] competing considerations” under California law). As such,

25
26
27
28

eBay also argues that the request is “overbroad and unduly burdensome” because the requested
documents are “totally irrelevant” and have “absolutely no bearing on Ali’s allegation[s].” Reply
at 1–2. This Court already rejected these arguments in its original order, finding Judge van
Keulen appropriately considered the relevancy and proportionality of Ali’s RFP No. 8 and
modified it accordingly. See ECF 66 at 3.
3
2

1
2

Judge van Keulen did not apply the appropriate legal standard in this inquiry.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing, this Court holds that Ali has not met his burden in

3

establishing that the need for disclosure here outweighs third party privacy rights to sensitive

4

personal and medical information under this balancing test. He fails even to discuss privacy

5

concerns in making his arguments, despite eBay’s showing that the medical information at issue

6

here is extremely sensitive and requires strong protection. He also fails to demonstrate why the

7

protective order is sufficient, given that he (a non-attorney) would have access to the information

8

and that even limited disclosure risks accidental, unauthorized disclosure. Given these failures,

9

the Court finds that production of the requests at issue in RFP No. 8 is not warranted.

10

The Court thus GRANTS eBay’s Motion for Partial Relief from Magistrate Judge Susan

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

van Keulen’s Nondispositive Pretrial Order without prejudice to Ali moving to compel production

12

of this information in the second phase of discovery, raising arguments under the appropriate

13

balancing test.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: August 29, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4