Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05056/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05056-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASMEN HOLLOWAY, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

BEST BUY CO., INC.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-5056 PJH (MEJ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

PERSONNEL RECORDS

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed August 22, 2006. 

(Doc. #34.) In the letter, the class action plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") seek to compel defendant Best Buy

Co., Inc. ("Best Buy") to produce personnel files of 15 current and former Best Buy employees that

Best Buy has subpoenaed for deposition. Plaintiffs argue that their counsel need to review the files

in order to prepare for the upcoming depositions and that the files contain information relevant to the

case. In response, Best Buy argues that the files contain matters that go to the heart of the witnesses'

right of privacy under the federal and California constitutions. Best Buy agrees that pay and some

family status information may be relevant, but questions the relevancy of other private financial,

family, and relationship information.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that limited production of the

deponents' personnel records is appropriate. In federal court, there is no privilege that protects

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 35 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

disclosure of personnel files. Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n.6

(9th Cir. 1987). Further, the employees' privacy interests are protected by the protective order in

this action. (Doc. #26.) Accordingly, the Court's only concern is the relevance of the personnel

records. On this point, Best Buy may redact Social Security numbers and those portions of the

records related to medical information. Best Buy may also redact financial information unrelated to

compensation. As to family records, Best Buy may redact the information that does not meet the

relevancy requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). For any such information, Best

Buy shall submit those portions of the personnel records for in camera review as well as a written

explanation as to why said portions are not relevant to any of Plaintiffs' claims. Best Buy shall make

any such submissions to the Court by August 31, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05056-PJH Document 35 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2