Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00047/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00047-7/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

*E-filed 3/15/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GRACIELA ZAMORA, et al., on behalf of

themselves and all other persons similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

D'ARRIGO BROTHERS COMPANY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

Case No. C04-00047 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT

Re: Docket No. 139

In this sex discrimination class action, plaintiffs allege that defendant agricultural

business fails to promote female field workers to the supervisory position of foreman. The

subject of this order, however, is not discrimination, but rather discovery. Plaintiffs here move

to compel: (1) responses to numbers 1 and 6 of their fourth request for production of

documents; (2) a response to certain questions left unanswered in defendant's 30(b)(6)

deposition; (3) responses to several requests for admissions, and associated

interrogatory/document responses; and (4) the deposition of John D'Arrigo, the president of the

defendant company. Defendant opposes the motion, and a hearing was held on March 13, 2007.

DISCUSSION

A. Request for Production of Documents

With respect to their fourth request for production of documents, plaintiffs now seek to 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 11
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

compel production of documents responsive to requests 1 and 6. 

1. Request No. 1 

This request reads: "All documents from January 1, 1998 to the present that tabulate

defendant's employees by gender, race and/or national origin, including Form EEO-1 Reports

submitted during this period." In response, defendants produced no documents, objecting on

grounds of overbreadth, burden, privacy rights, relevance, the statute of limitations, duplication

of prior discovery requests, and vagueness and ambiguity respecting the term "tabulate."

One of defendant's objections, to this and to other discovery requests at issue in this

motion, is that plaintiffs seek discovery dating back to January 1, 1998, while defendant's

potential liability only dates back to July 5, 2001. Defendant contends that information

predating the class period is not relevant. Plaintiffs cite this court's April 11, 2006 order on a

different discovery motion, where production was ordered of certain employee data dating back

to January 1, 1998. Defendant argues that the April 11, 2006 order only addressed the

particular discovery request before the court at the time, and should not be extended to apply to

all discovery requests. Defendant is correct that the court's earlier order only applied to

requests before the court at the time; however, the same rationale applies to the current dispute. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instructs that "it is appropriate to admit pre-liability data

into evidence in a disparate impact case if promotional practices remain similar over a long

period of time." Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2002). If information can

be admissible evidence, it certainly clears the lower hurdle of relevance at the discovery stage. 

Defendant's time period objection is therefore rejected. 

Defendant also argues that the request for documents that tabulate employees by race

and gender is "nonsensical," and that plaintiffs should rephrase this request. However,

defendant offers no rational explanation for its assertion and this court cannot think of one. The

plaintiffs' original language seems perfectly acceptable.

Finally, the court rejects defendant's suggestion that, merely because it has earlier

produced "similar information," the request is cumulative. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 11
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

3

to this document request. Defendants must turn over all Form EEO-1 Reports submitted since

January 1, 1998, as well as all other documents responsive to this request. 

2. Request No. 6

This request reads: "For all persons employed by defendant from January 1, 1998 to July

5, 2001, documents (including but not limited to electronic/computer generated documents and

data:

a. Name and i.d. number

b. Gender

c. Job title history

d. Job grade or classification history

e. Salary history, including weekly gross earnings during this period.

f. Date of hire

g. Date of termination, if applicable.

h. Job history, including promotion, transfer, demotion, advancement or change

in job classification, performance evaluations, including for each such transaction the date(s)

such action was taken and a description of the action.

i. Job application history

j. Disciplinary history, including all warning notices, and dates thereof.

k. Selection and/or participation in any training programs, internships,

apprenticeship programs.

l. Receipt of any certifications, special qualifications and awards."

This request mirrors one that was the subject of a discovery dispute last year, with the

difference being that the earlier request pertained to people employed after July 5, 2001. After

the court ordered production, the parties ultimately compromised in March 2006 about what

would be produced in satisfaction of that request, although they continue to disagree about the

implementation of the production. Plaintiffs now suggest that they would accept, in satisfaction

of the current request for data about people employed before July 5, 2001, the same categories

of information they agreed to accept with respect to those employed after July 5, 2001. 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 11
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

4

In its initial response to this request, defendant objected to Request No. 6 on various

grounds, including that the request does not sufficiently define the documents and categories of

employees to which it applies and that the request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms

"documents," "gender," "job history," and "job grade or classification history." Defendant also

objected on grounds of extreme overbreadth, privacy rights, excessive subparts, and violation of

the compromise agreement concerning the earlier request. In their moving papers plaintiffs

reject all of these objections and note that the March 2006 agreement only applied to post- July

5, 2001 employees.

In its opposition to this aspect of the motion, defendant presses three main arguments:

overbreadth, violation of the compromise, and burden. The court first addresses the March

2006 compromise, and concludes that any agreement between the parties on this subject was

never presented to the court, and therefore the court declines to interject itself into that aspect of

the parties' dispute. As for overbreadth and burden, defendant asserts that it would require one

month of manpower to retrieve this data from an outdated computer system. However, this

estimate comes from defendant's counsel, not from a sworn declaration provided by a

representative in a position to accurately estimate the burden. Defendant cannot convince this

court to be sympathetic to its claims of burden and practical hardship when they are based on

bare assertions with no competent evidence to back them up. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED

as to this document request. Plaintiffs may, at their discretion, choose to accept only those

categories of data covered by the March 2006 agreement.

B. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition 

In March 2005 plaintiffs requested certain computer-readable personnel data concerning

those persons who worked for defendant after July 5, 2001. The parties eventually worked out

a compromise about the subcategories of personnel data that defendant would produce in

satisfaction of this request. In November 2006, this court ordered defendant to produce a Rule

30(b)(6) representative to testify about the computer data, as plaintiffs had encountered

obstacles in interpreting the data, including the various codes used in the data. Despite this

order, defendant did not produce a deposition witness who knew all of the codes. 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 11
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

5

Defendant produced Rob White as its representative for this deposition. Plaintiffs were

dissatisfied with Mr. White's inability to explain the codes, and plaintiffs were also unhappy to

learn that a group of employees (the Brawley site employees) had apparently been excluded

from the computer data. Plaintiffs now move for a sworn supplement to this Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition that (1) informs plaintiffs of the meaning of all job classification codes, commodity

codes, location codes, and disciplinary codes; and (2) explains the exclusion of the Brawley

employees (in effect, plaintiffs seek the Brawley data).

 1. Computer Codes

At the hearing, defendant admitted that there exists a written description of all job

classification codes, commodity codes, location codes, and disciplinary codes, and lamely

explained that it had not been turned over at the time of Mr. White's deposition because

defendant was "not sure that was part of the deposition notice to bring along documents." 

However, defendant agreed to turn over a copy of these definitions promptly. 

2. Brawley Employees

Plaintiffs bring to the court's attention the fact that information on workers employed at

the Brawley worksite has been excluded from the electronic data produced pursuant to the

parties' March 2006 compromise. Plaintiffs first learned about this exclusion in November

2006 at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 

Defendant counters that no data has been "excluded." Defendant states that it only

included data pertaining to locations that are mentioned in the complaint, and that Brawley is

not one of those locations. Plaintiffs reply that there is nothing in the complaint or in the court's

class certification order that excludes the Brawley district.

The court rejects the semantic quibbling involved in trying to determine if the Brawley

data was "excluded" or simply "not included." It is undisputed that the Brawley location is a

part of defendant's operations, and this litigation concerns defendant as a whole, not individual

worksites. The court finds no basis for defendant to distinguish among its locations in

producing data required in discovery. Defendant must supplement its prior data production in

order to provide plaintiffs with data concerning all of its worksites, whether or not they are

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 5 of 11
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

6

mentioned in the complaint. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to the sworn supplement to the

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. If necessary, plaintiffs may conduct an additional 30(b)(6)

deposition.

C. Requests for Admissions

Plaintiffs served defendant with several Requests to Admit Facts. Plaintiffs also served

an Interrogatory and a Request to Produce for all documents not previously produced which

provide the basis for any denial of any of the Requests to Admit. In the following pages, when

this court orders defendant to admit or deny a certain request, the court also intends for

defendant to respond appropriately to the accompanying interrogatory and request for

production.

1. Request No. 1

Plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "During the period from January 1, 1998

through January 1, 2005, defendant did not employ any women as permanent forepersons (ie.,

persons employed in the foreperson job for a period exceeding 30 days) with responsibilities

over agricultural employees who worked for defendant." Defendant served numerous

objections, none of which the court finds persuasive. First, the court has already addressed

defendant's contention that discovery should be limited to the period of liability. Defendant

also contends that the request calls for an expert or legal opinion, and that plaintiffs have

sufficient information to be able to answer the question themselves. Neither of these

contentions is valid. The worst objection, however, is defendant's assertion that it cannot

respond because it chooses not to accept plaintiffs' definition of a "permanent foreperson." This

is a prime example of the obfuscation that characterizes defendant's discovery responses. The

court orders defendant to accurately and reasonably respond to this request, noting any

necessary qualifiers. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to this request.

2. Request No. 2

Plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "Prior to January 1, 1998, defendant did

not employ any women as permanent forepersons (ie., persons employed in the foreperson job

for a period exceeding 30 days) with responsibilities over agricultural employees who worked

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 6 of 11
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

7

for defendant." Defendant asserts the same objections to this request as it does to Request No.

1, and the court has the same opinions about those objections. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED

as to this request.

3. Requests Nos. 3 - 8

In Request No. 3, plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "For each year from

January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2001, the percentage of defendant's agricultural workers

who were women was never less than 15% of the total agricultural workers employed by

defendant." Requests 4 though 8 ask the same thing, but substitute different percentages: 20%,

25%, 30%, 35%, and 40%, respectively. 

Defendant mainly objects to the term "total agricultural workers employed by

defendant," contending the term is awkward and not discernable. Defendant argues that the

percentages could vary depending on whether the question was calling for annual, quarterly,

monthly, weekly, or daily calculations. Thus, once again defendant exploits a perceived

ambiguity in plaintiffs' requests and relies on that ambiguity to wiggle its way out of any

response whatsoever. The court concludes that defendant has an obligation to make a

reasonable response to this request, explaining the basis for its calculations if necessary.

Defendant also objects that these requests call for expert or legal conclusions, and that

plaintiffs should be able to do these calculations themselves. Given the past difficulties

plaintiffs have had in accessing uncorrupted data in the possession of defendant, the court

concludes that it is preferable for defendant to do the calculations. Plaintiffs' motion is

GRANTED as to these requests.

4. Request No. 16

Plaintiffs ask defendant to admit or deny that "For the period from January 1, 1998

through the present, defendant has not acted to validate that its practices and procedures used

with respect to the selection of forepersons are job-related." Plaintiffs explain that the issue of

job-relatedness is at the center of many disparate impact employment discrimination cases.

Defendant responds to this request with the familiar barrage of objections based on

relevance, time period, legal conclusion, etc. Defendant also contends that the phrase 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 7 of 11
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

8

"defendant has not acted to validate that its practices and procedures used with respect to the

selection of forepersons are job-related" is too ambiguous to be intelligible. The goal is to

comply with discovery obligations, not avoid them, and the court believes defendant is

practicing avoidance. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED as to this request.

D. Deposition of John D'Arrigo

Plaintiffs seek to depose the company's president, John D'Arrigo, but the company

objects that this deposition would be unreasonably burdensome and duplicative and that the

plaintiffs' sole motive is harassment. 

Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party

seeking to block a deposition must carry a "heavy burden" and make a "strong showing." 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). "Courts are sometimes willing

to protect high-level corporate officers from depositions when the officer has no first-hand

knowledge of the facts of the case or where the officer's testimony would be repetitive." First

United Methodist Church of San Jose v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., No. C-95-2243 DLJ, 1995

WL 566026, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 1995). "However, where a corporate officer has first

hand-knowledge of important, relevant, and material facts in the case the deposition should be

allowed." Id.

Plaintiffs argue that Mr. D'Arrigo should be made available for two reasons. First, he

can testify about company policy and practice relating to the advancement of female employees,

as well as other personnel-related subjects. Second, he has had some direct involvement in the

claim of one of the named plaintiffs. Plaintiff Zamora wrote a letter to Mr. D'Arrigo seeking a

private meeting with him about her desire to become a foreperson. Although it does not appear

that Mr. D'Arrigo chose to respond or further involve himself in Ms. Zamora's situation,

plaintiffs argue that they should be allowed to question Mr. D'Arrigo about his understanding of

the complaint and his response. 

Defendant argues that other managerial employees would be better witnesses concerning

personnel issues, as Mr. D'Arrigo is not involved in day-to-day decisions about promoting

employees to foreperson positions. Defendant goes so far as to claim that "Mr. D'Arrigo is not

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 8 of 11
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

9

responsible for overseeing how company policies or practices are carried out by supervisory

level employees." As for Ms. Zamora's letter, defendant insists that Mr. D'Arrigo merely

forwarded the letter to his Labor Relations Manager and had no further involvement.

Both sides present rational arguments, but defendant has the burden of showing why

relevant discovery should not go forward. Defendant has submitted no affidavit from Mr.

D'Arrigo swearing that he has no information about company equal employment and personnel

policies or that he had nothing to do with Ms. Zamora's situation. See General Star Indemnity

Co. v. Platinum Indemnity Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (affidavit required); Thomas

v. Int'l Business Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 483 (10th Cir. 1995) (affidavit submitted). It is

reasonable to expect that a company president would have substantial knowledge about basic

company policy and practice, especially something as basic as how people get promoted.

Plaintiffs are entitled to test Mr. D'Arrigo's knowledge in a deposition, rather than relying on the

assertions of defendant's lawyers. See In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan, No. MDL 1394-

GAF(RCx), 2002 WL 32155478, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2002) (plaintiffs entitled to test a

claim of lack of knowledge by deposing the witness). Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED in this

respect. Mr. D'Arrigo shall appear for a deposition at a time mutually convenient for the

parties, no later than March 27, 2007.

ORDER

This motion and the three prior discovery motions in this case lead this court to

conclude that defendant is more intent on dodging its discovery obligations than on complying

with them. Defendant takes refuge in the claimed ambiguity of plaintiffs' discovery requests,

quibbling over terminology and demonstrating little interest in reaching actual understanding. 

Instead of conscientiously seeking clarification, defendant has a habit of simply refusing to

answer. The court rejects defendant's chronic resort to pettifogging objections. 

//

//

//

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 9 of 11
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

10

Plaintiffs' motion is granted in its entirety. Defendants are to respond appropriately to

each component of this motion by March 27, 2007, except for the written explanation of

computer codes, which must be produced forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2007 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 10 of 11
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

11

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

James Gerard Bradtke jgbvjd@aol.com, gikm@aol.com 

Annabelle Cortez-Gonzalves agcortez@ufwmail.com, 

Geoffrey F. Gega ggega@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com,

jgomez@cookbrown.com, svaudreuil@cookbrown.com 

Mario G. Martinez mariomtz@ufwmail.com 

Stephen G. Seliger SSeliger1@aol.com, 

Regina Silva rsilva@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com 

Paul Strauss pstrauss@lawmbg.com, ldavis@lawmbg.com; slegenza@lawmbg.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered under the Court's ECF system.

Dated: 3/15/07

 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 148 Filed 03/15/07 Page 11 of 11