Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01242/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01242-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY HANDLOSER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HCL AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01242-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

NO. 6

Re: Dkt. No. 86

The parties dispute whether defendants HCL America, Inc. and HCL Technologies Ltd. 

(collectively, “HCL”) should be required to answer plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 (Set 4). 

Dkt. No. 86. Interrogatory No. 1 states:

Identify each year from 2014 forward that HCL was a 

nonconstruction contractor or subcontractor for the federal 

government (within the meaning of 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.1) with 50 or 

more employees in the United States and federal contracts worth 

$50,000 or more.

Interrogatory No. 2 states:

For any year from 2014 forward in which HCL contends it was not 

required to prepare affirmative action programs of the type required 

by 41 C.F.R. part 60-2, state all facts supporting your contention.

Dkt. No. 86-1 at 3. HCL responded with identical objections to each interrogatory and refused to 

answer. Dkt. No. 86-2 at 4-6. 

This dispute follows the Court’s resolution of a prior disagreement regarding whether HCL 

should be required to answer an interrogatory concerning its obligations, if any, to have an 

affirmative action program under the federal regulations that apply to certain government 

contractors. See Dkt. Nos. 69, 74. In resolving the prior dispute, the Court considered and 

rejected HCL’s relevance objection as follows:

Case 5:19-cv-01242-LHK Document 93 Filed 04/10/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The federal regulations at 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 provide that 

certain “nonconstruction (supply and service) contractors” working 

with the federal government must develop “affirmative action 

programs.” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.1. The purpose of an affirmative 

action program is as a “management tool designed to ensure equal 

employment opportunity.” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.10(a)(1). According to 

the regulations, “[a] central premise underlying affirmative action is 

that, absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, 

generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the 

labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects.” Id. The 

regulations include requirements governing the contents of these 

programs and procedures for evaluating contractors’ compliance 

with them. See, e.g., 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.10.

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that if HCL had an 

obligation under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 to develop and comply with an 

affirmative action program, its failure to do so may be relevant to 

plaintiffs’ claim of intentional racial discrimination. . . . In these 

circumstances, plaintiffs should be permitted to discover the factual 

basis for any contention by HCL that it did not have an obligation to 

develop an affirmative action program under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 

during the relevant period of time, particularly if HCL intends to 

rely on those facts in disputing plaintiffs’ allegations of intentional 

discrimination.

Dkt. No. 74 at 2-3. The Court also rejected HCL’s objection that a contention interrogatory 

seeking the factual basis for its position on whether HCL had such an obligation was improper. 

See id. at 3. However, the Court concluded that the at-issue interrogatory was not limited to 

discovery of HCL’s contention that it had no obligation under the federal regulations or to the 

facts that support such contention, and denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel an answer. Id.

With Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 (Set 4), plaintiffs attempt to remedy the defects of the 

interrogatory at issue in the prior dispute. In the parties’ joint submission, defendants rely on three 

objections: (1) the interrogatories seek information that is not relevant to any issue in the case; 

(2) answering the interrogatories would disclose privileged or work product information; 

(3) because the answers are not relevant to class certification and because answering the 

interrogatories requires HCL to undertake a burdensome analysis, it should not be required to 

answer until later in the discovery period. Dkt. No. 86 at 6-9. The Court considers each of these 

objections.

HCL’s first objection is easily resolved. The Court has already concluded that if HCL had 

an obligation under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 to develop and comply with an affirmative action 

program, its failure to do so is relevant to plaintiffs’ claim of intentional discrimination. See Dkt. 

Case 5:19-cv-01242-LHK Document 93 Filed 04/10/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 74 at 2-3. The Court has identified no reason to revisit this conclusion.

HCL’s second objection also is easily resolved. Neither interrogatory requires HCL to 

disclose any communications with counsel or counsel’s work product. The fact that counsel’s 

analysis may be required to formulate an answer to these interrogatories does not mean that the 

interrogatories require disclosure of that analysis. Interrogatory No. 1 asks HCL to identify the 

years during which it was a nonconstruction contractor or subcontractor within the meaning of 41 

C.F.R. part 60-2, and Interrogatory No. 2 asks HCL to state, for any year in which HCL contends 

it had no affirmative action obligation under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2, what facts support that 

contention. While HCL is correct that both interrogatories seek, implicitly or explicitly, its 

contention with respect to whether it met the requirements for application of 41 C.F.R. part 60-2,

the Court previously concluded that an interrogatory answer that requires application of law to fact 

does not render the interrogatory objectionable. See id. at 3. The Court has identified no reason to 

revisit this conclusion.

HCL’s third objection has two premises. The first premise is that the answers to 

Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 are not relevant to the question of class certification. While the 

evidence plaintiffs seek via these interrogatories is unlikely to be dispositive of any class 

certification issue, it is likely relevant to the question of HCL’s discriminatory intent as applied to 

the proposed class as a whole. In any event, as HCL readily acknowledges, the presiding judge 

has not bifurcated discovery in this case. The second premise for HCL’s objection is that the 

interrogatories require it to undertake a burdensome analysis. This theme is reflected in HCL’s 

written objections to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, in which HCL asserts that “[t]o prepare an 

answer to the interrogatory, Defendants would need to conduct an extensive review of their 

operations, analyze those operations, and prepare a response . . . .” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 86-2 at 4. 

The Court infers from these statements that HCL does not know whether it is or was a 

nonconstruction contractor or subcontractor within the meaning of 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 or whether 

it has or had an obligation to prepare an affirmative action program—i.e. that it has no position 

either way. 

On the present record, the Court is unable to evaluate whether HCL’s assertion that it does 

Case 5:19-cv-01242-LHK Document 93 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not know and does not have a position on the applicability of 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 is reasonable or 

implausible. Rule 33(b) requires a corporate defendant to answer an interrogatory based on 

information available to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). If HCL cannot answer the substance of 

Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 because it does not know whether it is or was a nonconstruction 

contractor or subcontractor within the meaning of 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 or whether it has or had an 

obligation to prepare an affirmative action program, and it does not take a position on these issues, 

it should amend its answers to both interrogatories to so state. However, HCL may not simply 

refuse to answer these interrogatories because it does not wish to disclose that it met or currently

meets the criteria of the regulation but has failed to comply with it. 

HCL shall serve amended responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 (Set 4) consistent with 

the direction in this order by April 17, 2020. The Court denies HCL’s alternative request to 

postpone its duty to respond to these interrogatories until after class certification or until the end of 

discovery. However, the Court reminds HCL of its continuing duty to promptly supplement its 

interrogatory responses as required under Rule 26(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01242-LHK Document 93 Filed 04/10/20 Page 4 of 4