Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02644/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02644-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DARNELL FARMEARL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STOROPACK, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-02644 RMW (HRL)

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AND (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket No. 57]

On October 11, 2005, this court heard the “Motion to Compel Discovery or for Sanctions”

filed by plaintiff Darnell Farmearl. Defendant Storopack, Inc. opposed the motion. Upon

consideration of the papers filed by the parties, as well as the arguments of counsel, the court issues

the following order.

1. In his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges that Document Request No. 5 is now

irrelevant in light of the District Court’s September 12, 2005 summary judgment order. Additionally,

plaintiff states that he is not seeking a further response to Document Request No. 15. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s motion as to these requests is DENIED AS MOOT.

2. Preliminarily, defendant argues that the instant motion to compel discovery should be

denied because it was filed well after the deadline for filing such motions. It asserts that the fact

discovery cutoff was July 1, 2005, and any motions to compel were therefore required to be filed by

July 12, 2005. See Civ. L.R. 26-2 (“Where the Court has set separate deadlines for fact and expert

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 10
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

discovery, no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the fact

discovery cut-off . . ..”). Nevertheless, the District Court permitted plaintiff to seek the discovery at

issue beyond the cutoff date despite the fact that the requests were belatedly served. This court

concludes that fairness dictates that he be given an opportunity to seek to enforce those requests.

3. Defendant also argues that the instant motion should be denied (or not entertained at

all) because plaintiff failed to conduct meet/confer negotiations in person or by telephone. Indeed, the

court’s Civil Local Rules require that, before a motion to compel is filed, the parties engage in direct

dialogue, either in person or over the telephone, to resolve any discovery dispute. Here, plaintiff’s

counsel acknowledges that he did not do so before filing the instant motion. Given the nature of the

issues presented, however, it seems that any further meet/confer efforts now would be unavailing. 

Nevertheless, plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that he is obliged to engage in meaningful meet/confer

negotiations – either in person or by telephone – to resolve all disputed issues before seeking judicial

intervention. See Civ. L.R. 37-1(a); see also Civ. L.R. 1-5(n).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents

4. Plaintiff has propounded requests seeking documents pertaining to (a) his employment

(Request No. 2); (b) employee Ernie Fulgado’s compensation (Request No. 3); (c) Ernie Fulgado’s

qualifications (Request No. 4); (d) “computerized files” of documents supplied by defendant at the

deposition of its Human Resources Director, Evelyn Burke (Request No. 10); and (e) “computer files”

of documents pertaining to plaintiff (Request No. 11). Plaintiff moves for an order compelling

defendant to produce responsive “computerized files.”

It was not clear what plaintiff meant by “computerized documents,” nor has he clearly

articulated what categories of “computerized documents” he seeks. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel

clarified that he seeks electronic copies of documents (i.e., to be produced on disks) pertaining to

plaintiff’s harassment complaints and to disciplinary actions against plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that date

discrepancies and formatting irregularities in the hard copy records produced by defendant indicate

that defendant either doctored the documents or created them after-the-fact to defend against his

claims in this lawsuit. Defendant states that it has produced printouts of all responsive documents,

including drafts (if any exist). Nevertheless, this court finds that plaintiff should have an opportunity to

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 10
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

verify the integrity of the hard copy documents, and defendant has not demonstrated any undue burden

that would be imposed.

Accordingly, no later than October 25, 2005, defendant shall produce a disk containing

electronic copies of documents comprising, referring, relating or pertaining to (a) plaintiff’s disciplinary

records; (b) plaintiff’s termination; and (c) defendant’s investigation or inquiry (if any) into plaintiff’s

complaints made with defendant or with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

(“DFEH”). Defendant’s production shall include responsive documents, if any, from the particular

subdirectory from Burke’s files referenced by plaintiff at the motion hearing. The electronic files,

including any meta data (i.e., information indicating when the file was created or modified and by

whom), shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business in accordance with

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

This order is without prejudice to plaintiff to request an expert inspection (at plaintiff’s

expense) of defendant’s pertinent computer hard drives upon a showing that the disk information does

not provide him with the information necessary to verify the integrity of defendant’s documents.

5. Plaintiff seeks personnel records of (a) Roberto Martinez, a co-worker who allegedly

harassed plaintiff (Request No. 6); (b) Jesse Valderrama, plaintiff’s former supervisor at Storopack

(Request No. 7) and Troy Biscardi, a Storopack manager (Request No. 8).

With respect to Request No. 6, defendant represents that it has produced all non-privileged

documents that refer or relate to Martinez’s conduct which was of a racially or sexually offensive

nature. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s motion as to this request is GRANTED as to any responsive

documents which refer or relate to (a) the incident in which Martinez allegedly left mice on sticky

paper on plaintiff’s desk and (b) plaintiff’s complaints about Martinez’s allegedly being drunk on the

job. Such documents (if any) are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence pertaining to plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge or wrongful discharge claims. In

addition, to the extent defendant has responsive DFEH records in its possession, custody or control

which it has not produced to plaintiff, it shall do so. All such documents shall be produced no later

than October 25, 2005.

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 10
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

Plaintiff’s motion as to Request Nos. 7 and 8 is DENIED. Plaintiff generally asserts that

Valderrama and Biscardi’s conduct and performance records will show “how Storopack treated nonBlack employees different from Black employees . . .” (Mot. at 4:23-24). However, he has not

sufficiently explained how such records are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence of his claims, nor has he shown a need for the information which outweighs

these individuals’ privacy interests. Moreover, to the extent plaintiff seeks documents showing

whether these individuals exercised discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine

corporate policy, defendant represents that it has none.

6. Plaintiff moves to compel several categories of documents pertaining to non-party

employees including: (a) all documents reflecting “writings by employees about another employee’s

performance or conduct” (Request No. 9), (b) all documents reflecting “performance evaluations of

management personnel” at defendant’s San Jose office (Request No. 12); (c) all “time card documents

for machine operators from July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001” (Request No. 19); and (d) all

“documents that refer or relate to any discipline taken against any Storopack San Jose employee”

(Request No. 23).

Request Nos. 9 and 23 are overbroad, and plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated the

relevance of other employees’ writings and all other employees’ disciplinary records as “comparative

evidence.” Nor has he articulated a need for such information that outweighs these individuals’ privacy

interests. His motion as to these requests is therefore DENIED.

Plaintiff has likewise failed to demonstrate the relevance of all management employees’

disciplinary records or to explain how other machine operators’ time card documents are relevant to

“another form of harassment” against him. Accordingly, the motion is also DENIED as to Request

Nos. 12 and 19.

7. Request No. 13 seeks “[a]ll documents that refer or relate to investigations conducted

in the San Jose office of discrimination and harassment complaints from employees.” The request is

overbroad, and the court is unconvinced that the documents are relevant or necessary as “comparative

evidence.” In any event, defendant represents that it has produced all non-privileged responsive

documents. With respect to any investigations of plaintiff’s complaints, at the hearing, defense counsel

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 10
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

represented that there was no investigation of his complaints other than telephone calls between Burke

and (unnamed) managers at the San Jose plant. He further represented to the court that these phone

calls were not documented in any form or fashion, except perhaps in notes made by Storopack’s

attorneys. The court assumes that any claimed privilege documents have been included on defendant’s

privilege log. Based upon defendant’s representations, there appears to be nothing to compel. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to this request is DENIED.

8. Request No. 16 seeks “[a]ll documents that refer or relate to training given to the

management personnel in San Jose.” The request is overbroad and vague as to “training.” 

Nevertheless, defendant acknowledges in its opposition brief that anti-harassment training is relevant

or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pertaining to plaintiff’s claims

in this lawsuit. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to any documents that refer or relate to antiharassment training given to defendant’s San Jose management personnel during the period of

plaintiff’s employment with defendant. Defendant shall produce all such documents no later than

October 25, 2005. Plaintiff’s motion as to Request No. 16 is otherwise DENIED.

9. Request No. 18 seeks documents “that explain how Storopack determined hourly

rates to be paid to its machine operators.” Plaintiff argues that defendant agreed to produce

responsive documents but has not yet done so. However, defendant has served a supplemental

response to this request stating that it “has no non-privileged documents that explain how Storopack

determined hourly rates to be paid to its machine operators at the San Jose plant.” Thus, there appear

to be no documents to compel. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to this request is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories

10. Interrogatory No. 1 asks defendant to “[s]tate with particularity Defendant’s

responses to each factual matter asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint.” Defendant objects to the

interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information pertaining to more than twenty-five discrete topics

and therefore violates the numeric limit on interrogatories under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). The court agrees. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to Interrogatory No. 1 is DENIED.

11. Interrogatory No. 2 asks defendant to “[i]dentify with particularity every occasion in

which Defendant alleges Darnell Farmearl engaged in misconduct during his employment at Storopack,

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 5 of 10
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

Inc.” In response, defendant asserted several objections, but nevertheless referred in its answer to

several documents, including (a) the declarations of Evelyn Burke and Troy Biscardi submitted in

support of defendant’s summary judgment motion and (b) the 290-page transcript of Evelyn Burke’s

deposition. There is some question in this court’s mind as to whether these documents are “business

records” which may be identified in lieu of an answer under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d). Nevertheless,

plaintiff’s only complaint is that defendant should be compelled to specify where in the declarations

and deposition transcript the responsive information is located.

Defendant has specified the records from which it claims the answer may be ascertained. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d) (“A specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to

locate and identify, as readily as can the party served, the records from which the answer may be

ascertained”). The court is not convinced that the burden of locating the responsive information within

the specified records is any greater for plaintiff than for defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion as to

this interrogatory is DENIED.

12. Interrogatory No. 3 asks defendant to “[i]dentify with particularity each instance in

which a warehouse employee worked overtime hours (i.e., more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a

week) during the final three months of 2001.” Plaintiff contends that the information is relevant

because defendant allegedly allowed non-African-American employees to work overtime, but barred

him from doing so. However, defendant has submitted excerpts of plaintiff’s own deposition testimony

in which he appears to acknowledge that (a) the denial of his overtime is not based on race

discrimination and (b) Leray Williams, an African-American co-worker, was allowed to work

overtime when plaintiff allegedly was not permitted to do so. (Sommer Decl., Ex. G (Farmearl Depo.,

79:10-81:2)). The motion as to Interrogatory No. 3 is DENIED.

13. Interrogatory No. 4 asks defendant to “[i]dentify with particularity every form of

communication between Darnell Farmearl and Roberto Martinez which Defendant contends was

welcomed by Mr. Farmearl.” In meet/confer negotiations, plaintiff apparently clarified that he sought

instances of “mutual horseplay” between plaintiff and Martinez. Despite plaintiff’s claim to the

contrary, the papers submitted to the court show that defendant did serve its supplemental response to

this interrogatory.

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 6 of 10
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

At the hearing, defense counsel represented, unequivocably, that defendant has identified all

the instances of “horseplay” of which it is currently aware. Accordingly, the motion as to this

interrogatory is DENIED. Nevertheless, the court notes that defendant also claims that it “is unable to

identify every possible communication between plaintiff and Martinez that demonstrates that they

engaged in ‘horseplay,’” and apparently leaves it to defendant’s employee-witnesses to testify at trial

about any incidents which defendant claims that it cannot now recall. Defendant is obliged to conduct

a reasonable investigation and to respond fully providing “such information as is available” to it. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). Further, defendant is obliged “seasonably to amend” its discovery responses as

may be necessary. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). To the extent defendant attempts to introduce testimony

about any such incidents for the first time at trial, it shall be required to show good cause why it was

unable to disclose the information sooner.

14. Interrogatory No. 5 asks defendant to “[i]dentify with particularity every internal

investigation conducted of the complaints raised by Darnell Farmearl about his working conditions at

Storopack, Inc.” Defendant asserted a number of objections and states that it “is unable to respond

because Plaintiff complained so frequently throughout his employment concerning matters completely

unrelated to his harassment claim.” Nevertheless, it responded that once plaintiff filed his DFEH

complaint, defendant “conducted an investigation of his allegations which included interviewing plant

management.” Defendant represents that it has provided a complete response as to plaintiff’s

harassment complaints based on currently available information. Accordingly, the motion as to this

request is DENIED. As noted above, however, defendant is reminded of its obligation to conduct a

reasonable investigation as to the matter and to seasonably amend its response as may be necessary. 

Fed.R.Civ. P. 33(a), 26(e).

15. Interrogatory No. 6 asks defendant to “[s]tate with particularity all facts that support

any denials Defendant has of the factual allegations made in the declarations used as exhibits in the

Evelyn Burke deposition.” Defendant contends that this interrogatory seeks information pertaining to

more than 25 discrete topics and therefore violates the 25-interrogatory limit set by Fed.R.Civ.P.

33(a). Plaintiff contends that the interrogatory should be construed as only two separate requests. 

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 7 of 10
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

Neither party has presented any basis for this court to meaningfully evaluate its assertions. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

16. Interrogatory No. 7 asks defendant to “[s]tate with particularity all facts that support

Defendant’s contention that Darnell Farmearl was never subjected to any incidents of harassment

during the course of his employment.” Defendant asserted several objections, but nevertheless

responded with reasons why it believes that plaintiff was not subject to unwelcome harassment which

created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how defendant’s response is

“evasive and non-responsive.” The motion as to this interrogatory is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Admissions

17. Request for Admission Nos. 1 and 2 seek admissions that “Darnell Farmearl’s writing

in January 2003 that an employee was drunk while at work was at least one reason why Storopack

discharged Mr. Farmearl” and “Darnell Farmearl’s writing in January 2003 that an employee drunk at

work had not been sent for a ‘piss test’ was at least one reason why Storopack discharged Mr.

Farmearl.”

Defendant objected to the requests as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “Darnell

Farmearl’s writing.” It also objected on the ground that, as worded, the requests create unfair

inferences and are subject to a variety of interpretations. Nevertheless, it responded with a qualified

admission that plaintiff was fired “for his continuously disrespectful and insubordinate conduct, which

was evidenced, in part, by him writing inflammatory comments about a co-worker on a wall calendar

that was visible in the workplace.”

Plaintiff contends that defendant has re-written the interrogatories and that its responses

conflict with its stated position in the litigation that plaintiff was not fired for the content of his writings. 

However, the court finds that defendant fairly qualified its admissions to reflect defendant’s apparent

position that plaintiff was fired for the manner in which his “writing” was made. To the extent plaintiff

takes issue with the veracity of these responses, it is not this court’s role on the present motion to

determine the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, the motion as to these requests are DENIED.

18. Request for Admission No. 3 seeks an admission that “[i]mmediately after seeing

Darnell Farmearl’s writing on or about January 10, 2003 about Roberto Martinez, Storopack

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 8 of 10
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

concluded that Mr. Martinez had been under the influence of alcohol at work.” Defendant objected to

the request as vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “Darnell Farmearl’s writing” and

further objected that, as worded, the request created unfair inferences. Nonetheless, defendant

admitted that “it concluded that Mr. Martinez was under the influence of alcohol for reasons

independent of Mr. Farmearl’s writing.”

Plaintiff fails to articulate how defendant’s response is deficient and asserts only that this

request “require[s] [a] respons[e] also.” (Reply at 4:27). Accordingly, the motion as to this request

is DENIED.

19. Request for Admission No. 5 seeks an admission that “[a]fter receiving Darnell

Farmearl’s administrative Charge of Discrimination, Storopack failed to conduct an investigation into

any of the claims in that Charge of Discrimination.” Defendant objected to the phrase “administrative

Charge of Discrimination” as vague and ambiguous, but nevertheless denied the matter based upon its

understanding of the request. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why defendant’s response is

deficient, except to say that this request “require[s] [a] respons[e] also.” (Reply at 4:27). The motion

as to this request is DENIED.

20. Request for Admission No. 6 seeks an admission that “[a]t no time during the two

year period prior to January 10, 2003, did Storopack ever investigate Darnell Farmearl’s complaints

about sex or race discrimination.” Defendant objected to the phrase “complaints about sex or race

discrimination” as vague and ambiguous. It nevertheless denied the matter based upon its

understanding of the request. Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why defendant’s response is

deficient, asserting only that this request “require[s] [a] respons[e] also.” (Reply at 4:27). The motion

as to this request is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

21. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant correctly notes that the motion

did not comply with Civil Local Rule 37-3. In any event, under the circumstances presented, the court

concludes that sanctions are not warranted.

Dated: 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 9 of 10
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

5:04-cv-2644 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Thomas P. Brown , IV tbrown@ebglaw.com 

Richard D. Schramm rschramm@workplaceattys.com 

Andrew J. Sommer Asommer@ebglaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered

for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-02644-RMW Document 72 Filed 10/14/05 Page 10 of 10