Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00099/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00099-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 1

 These letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 345, 347 and 348.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-0098 SI, 04-0099 SI

Related Case: 03-2659 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTION, DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR STAY, AND DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR FEES

Plaintiffs have filed an “Objection; Request for Stay; and Request for Hearing on Discovery Referee’s

Ruling Denying Electronic Data.” Defendant has filed an opposition, and plaintiffs have filed a reply. 1 The

Court has reviewed these papers, along with the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Frederick Douglas in

Support of Defendant’s Opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 governs the use of court-appointed special masters. Pursuant to

Rule 53(g), the Court reviews a special master’s findings of fact for “clear error.” However, the clearly

erroneous standard applies only to purely factual findings. The court reviews de novo a special master’s

conclusions oflaw, Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir. 1991), and

resolution of mixed questions of law and fact, Swoboda v. Pala Mining, Inc., 844 F.2d 654, 656 (9th Cir.

1988). In addition, the Court “may set aside a master’s ruling on a procedural matter only for an abuse of

discretion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g)(5). A party may file objections to a special master’s decision within 20 days

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 217 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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

from the time the master’s decision is served. Id. at 53(g)(2). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs raise two related objections to the Special Master’s December 16, 2005 decision. First,

plaintiffs assert that the Special Master erred by limiting them to paper personnel files and denying them

“electronic data” because, according to plaintiffs, the paper personnel files are incomplete. Second, plaintiffs

contend that the Special Master erred by denying them access to the database created by the defendants in

Satchell et al. v. FedEx, 03-2659 SI. Plaintiffs contend that the information contained in the database is

responsive to their discovery requests, and that it should be provided because Alvarado and White are

“related” to Satchell under Civil Local Rule 3-12.

Plaintiffs’ contentions lack merit, particularly in light ofthe history ofthe proceedings before the Special

Master. The Court notes at the outset that the Special Master has done a thorough, conscientious and

commendable job. After the Special Master was appointed, he issued a letter dated November 4, 2005 in

which he noted, inter alia, that plaintiffs contended that they had not had an adequate opportunity to review

personnelfiles. The Special Master noted that plaintiffs’ counsel should have taken steps to remedy that issue

sooner, but because he did not believe that the Alvarado and White plaintiffs should be prejudiced by their

counsel’s delay, he directed plaintiffs’ counsel to provide defense counselwith a list of every FedEx location

at which they wished to conduct a document inspection and the date on which they intended to conduct the

inspection. The Special Master directed that these inspections were to take place between November 11 and

November 23, 2005. Although plaintiffs now assert to the Court that this time limitation was unreasonable,

plaintiffs did not seek review of the November 4, 2005 order, and thus plaintiffs have waived any challenge

to the time limitation. Moreover, the Court concludes that this time limitation was eminently reasonable given

the fact that discovery had long since closed, plaintiffs had already had ample opportunity, which they

squandered, to address the issue, and the trial date was fast approaching. 

According to the Special Master’s December 16, 2005 decision, plaintiffs’ counsel visited all of the

FedEx locations at which theywanted to conduct an inspection of the personnel files. Plaintiffs do not dispute

this fact. Nevertheless, plaintiffs assert to this Court that there were additional locations that they wished to

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 217 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

visit. Plaintiffs have not submitted any documentation indicating that they raised this issue with the Special

Master, and thus this objection is not properly presented to the Court. Even if plaintiffs had raised this issue

with the Special Master, the Court concludes, for the reasons stated supra, that any limitations he placed on

the number of the facilities that plaintiffs could visit was reasonable and certainly not an abuse of discretion.

The main thrust of plaintiffs’ objectionto the Special Master’s decision is plaintiffs’ allegation that the

paper personnelfiles are incomplete, and thus plaintiffs must have electronic data. Plaintiffs assert that FedEx

“admitted” that the paper personnelfiles are incomplete, and that FedEx deceived this Court in July 2005 when

it represented that on-site inspections of personnel files would produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’

requests. Plaintiffs provide no factual support whatsoever for this allegation, nor do plaintiffs provide any details

regarding the alleged admission. Moreover, as noted by the Special Master in his December 16, 2005

decision, plaintiffs’ counsel admitted that the paper personnel files contained most of the information that they

sought, and indeed after the Special Master conducted an in camera review of personnel files, he also

concluded that most of the information plaintiffs sought was contained in the files. 

Plaintiffs also object to the fact that the SpecialMaster required themto identify which personnel files

they contended were incomplete. The Court finds no error in the Special Master’s decision. The Special

Master found, after his in camera review, that information about pay increases and promotions was often

insufficient, and he directed plaintiffs to identify for defendants which files did not contain adequate information

on those two subjects. The Special Master’s decision in this regard was reasonable and not an abuse of

discretion.

Finally, plaintiffs object to the Special Master’s denial of their request for access to the database

created in Satchell. The Special Master denied plaintiffs’ request as untimely, noting that despite the fact that

plaintiffs’ counsel were aware of the Satchell database as early as September 2004, the first time they

expressed a desire for access to the database was in a letter to the Special Master dated November 22, 2005.

The Special Master found that plaintiffs had not specifically requested a copy ofthe Satchell database in their

discovery requests before discovery closed, nor had they ever contended to this Court that defendants’

discovery responses were incomplete due to the failure to produce the database. Moreover, the Special

Master noted that despite his direction to plaintiffs to file a motionto compelby November 9, 2005 addressing

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 217 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

 Plaintiffs’ counsel has also requested a telephone conference to discuss an alleged “secret deal”

concerning the Satchell database. As the Court has concluded that plaintiffs are not entitled to the database,

plaintiffs’ request for a conference is denied as moot.

4

all outstanding discovery issues, plaintiffs did not raise the Satchell database in that letter. For all of these

reasons, the Special Master denied plaintiffs’ request for the database as untimely.

The Court agrees that plaintiffs’ request for the Satchell database is untimely. In their “objection,”

plaintiffs do not even address any of the Special Master’s findings of untimeliness. Instead, plaintiffs simply

assert that they will be prejudiced ifthey are not provided access to the information, and that they are entitled

to this information because Satchell is a “related” case. However, as the Special Master found, plaintiffs have

been aware ofthe database since September 2004, and only first contended that they needed this information

on November 22, 2005, well after the close of discovery. Plaintiffs’ “request” for the Satchell database is

untimely, and any prejudice that they suffer is of their own doing. Further, the fact that Satchell is a “related”

case is completely irrelevant to whether the Alvarado and White plaintiffs are entitled to the database.2 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs’ objections and request for a stay, and

DENIES plaintiffs’ request that defendant be required to pay for all of the Special Master’s fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 217 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4