Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02042-4/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

GERALD DUMAGUIT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02042 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

The Court has received the parties joint letter brief dated July 25, 2007, in which

Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce deposition testimony of and expert reports prepared

by his designated expert, Bernard Rappaport, M.D., in employment discrimination cases in

which Dr. Rappaport has acted as an expert, from the year 2000 to the present. 

Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this

case, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall submit a further joint letter brief by August 9, 2007, not to

exceed two pages, setting forth their respective positions on the time period covered by

Plaintiff’s request. The Court notes that based on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it

appears that Plaintiff was placed on leave in the year 2000. Thus, pending a further showing as

to why Plaintiff would not be entitled to Dr. Rappaport’s deposition testimony and expert

reports from that date onward, the Court is tentatively inclined to grant Plaintiff’s request as to

the requisite time period. 

2. With respect to any expert reports or deposition testimony that have been made a

part of the public record, the Court finds that these materials are equally available to Plaintiff

Case 3:06-cv-02042-JSW Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 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

and that Defendant and Dr. Rappaport should not bear the burden of producing those materials. 

A list of Dr. Rappaport’s cases from April 2003-April 2007 has been attached as an exhibit to

the parties’ joint letter brief. It is unclear, however, whether Dr. Rappaport’s expert report or

deposition testimony are a part of the public record. Accordingly, Defendant shall identify

those employment discrimination cases identified that exhibit, for which Dr. Rappaport’s expert

report or deposition testimony, or both, was made a part of the public record. The Court

reserves ruling on whether Defendant shall be required to produce a similar list for the year

2000 through April 2003, pending its consideration of the parties’ supplemental letter brief

required by paragraph 1 of this Order. 

3. The Court is further inclined to grant Plaintiff’s request for those reports or

deposition testimony that have not been made part of the public record, subject to the

Defendant’s offer that these reports would be redacted. The Court is also inclined to grant Dr.

Rappaport some reasonable compensation for the costs associated with redaction, but will not

grant him his normal hourly rate. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer and attempt to

come to an agreement upon a reasonable amount of compensation, either to Dr. Rappaport or to

his designated agent, taking into consideration any privacy interests involved. If the parties

cannot agree on an appropriate compensation amount, the parties may set forth their respective

positions in their joint supplemental letter brief required by paragraph 1 of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02042-JSW Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2