Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 411 and 413.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 FEDEX EXPRESS,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-02659 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a request for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(c)(5) excluding FedEx managers from attending the depositions of class members who are current

employees.1 Plaintiffs contend that the presence of the managers is intimidating to the deponents.

Plaintiffs have submitted an excerpt from the deposition transcript of Shirley Q. Naylor, a current FedEx

employee. During that deposition, Ms. Naylor testified that she felt “intimidated” and “uncomfortable”

because her former manager was at her deposition. Naylor Depo. at 6-7. Ms. Naylor also testified that,

notwithstanding the presence of her manager, she had testified truthfully during her deposition and that

her manager’s presence did not affect the substance of her testimony in any way. Id. at 74-75.

The Court concludes that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a protective order is warranted.

Plaintiffs must make a “strong showing of annoyance or embarrassment to the deponent” to justify

prohibiting FedEx from having the corporate representatives of its choice attend the class member

depositions. See Hon. William W. Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 11:1532

(2006). Here, plaintiffs do not contend that the managers have engaged in any harassing or improper

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 417 Filed 07/06/06 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

behavior at the depositions; instead, the request is based solely on the fact of the managers’ presence.

The Court concludes that this fact alone is not sufficient to require a protective order. Accordingly, the

Court DENIES plaintiffs’ request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 417 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 2