Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00539/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00539-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

JACKIE FLORES, ARBELLA YADEGAR and

VAN NORMA WINTERHOLLER, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ZALE DELAWARE, INC., and DOES 1 TO 10,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00539 TEH (MEJ)

ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PARTIES'

MAY 09, 2008 LETTER BRIEF

REQUESTING PRODUCTION OF

PLAINTIFF FLORES'

EMPLOYMENT PERSONNEL FILES

FROM FOUR SUBSEQUENT

EMPLOYERS

Before the Court is the parties' letter brief, filed on May 09, 2008, relating to the request for

discovery relief by Defendant Zale Delaware, Inc., ("Zales"). Zales seeks an order compelling

production of Plaintiff Jackie Flores' employment personnel files from four subsequent employers:

Bank of America, Century 21 Powerhouse Realty, Four Points by Sheraton and Starwood Hotels &

Resorts, and Wells Fargo & Co.(the "Subsequent Employers"). On March 20, 2008, Counsel for

Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to raise numerous objections to the scope of the subpoenas.

Plaintiff Flores has objected to the scope of the subpoenas. Plaintiff contends that the

information sought is protected under her constitutional right to privacy and furthermore is not

directly relevant to nor illustrative of which duties she performed while employed by Zales Jewelers.

Additionally, Plaintiff argues that such information is not relevant to address her adequacy as a class

representative. 

Case 3:07-cv-00539-TEH Document 53 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Zales concedes that the information requested may contain private information however

Zales argues that its relevancy to critical issues in this case should outweigh any such privacy

interests and should be produced. Zales argues that evaluations contained within the performance

reviews may have been based upon or scaled against Plaintiff's representations to the subsequent

employers about the nature of her job duties while employed by Zales. Zales then argues that it may

be able to extrapolate or derive evidence in support of the depth and quality of the skills that

Plaintiff acquired by virtue of her employment with Defendant. Continuing this argument, Zales

contends that the information within Plaintiff's assessments and/or performance evaluations also has

the potential to diminish the Plaintiff's credibility as a witness by showing that over 50% of her time

was engaged in managerial duties and therefore inconsistent with her testimony. In the alternative,

Defendant asks the Court to review such documents in camera to determine whether such

production is appropriate.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 26 states, "[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. However, courts have

limited discovery of personnel files citing to public policy favoring the employee's privacy and

allowing for frank evaluations by employers, however courts have tempered this limitation by

allowing discovery in the face of a compelling need and clear relevance (Matter of Hawaii Corp. 88

FRD 518, 524 (D HI 1980). Despite such strong public policy against disclosure, discovery may be

had if (1) the material sought is clearly relevant, and (2) the need for discovery is compelling

because the information sought is not otherwise readily obtainable. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

v. Sloan, 22 Fed.R.Serv.2d 500, 505 (S.D.N.Y.1976) (citing Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D.

482, 483-484 (S.D.N.Y.1964)). The Defendant has not met either prong. Defendant's logic does not

evince that such material is clearly relevant, the Court finds the relationship is tenuous at best. Nor

can the Court find a direct correlation or conversion between the quantity of time Plaintiff spent

performing a duty at one job and the quality of performance that may have been recorded at a

Case 3:07-cv-00539-TEH Document 53 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 3
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

subsequent job. The Court finds that the information the Defendant seeks, such as Plaintiff's

representations regarding the nature and allocation of time spent in her job duties, could be had from

primary-authored sources-- from the Plaintiff's own assertions, such as, but not limited to, her

resume, application, or oral representations or descriptions of her duties while at Zales rather than

extrapolating information from secondary sources or converting tertiary sources. Furthermore, the

Supreme Court has expressly ruled that a trial court cannot be required to search through a

confidential personnel file without first establishing a basis for a defendant's claim that the file

contained material evidence. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40

(1987). Here they have not done so. 

The Court orders that the subpoenas shall be limited to any statement, written, claimed, or

otherwise authorized by Plaintiff, made to her subsequent employers regarding her employment

and/or duties while employed by the Defendant. These statements include, but are not limited to, the

Plaintiff's resume, application, or oral representations, responses, or descriptions of her duties while

at Zales. Therefore, within 7 days from the date of this Order, any such statement by Plaintiff Flores,

made to her subsequent employers regarding her employment and/or duties while employed by the

Defendant shall be produced for the Defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2008

 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:07-cv-00539-TEH Document 53 Filed 07/31/08 Page 3 of 3