Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03978/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03978-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA H. LOCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-3978 CRB (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 53)

Plaintiff Jessica H. Lockett has filed suit against Defendant Bayer Healthcare for

employment discrimination. Currently pending before the Court is Ms. Lockett’s motion to compel

further responses to specific document requests. Having considered the parties’ briefs and

accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS in

part and DENIES in part the motion to compel.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Request No. 1

The motion to compel is denied as to the first request. Bayer has submitted a declaration to

support its claim that “Bayer has already provided . . . the names of the phone companies which

provided to Bayer local and long-distance services” and that “Bayer no longer has the actual phone

records requested” because phone call data is routinely retained for only one year. Stroud Decl. ¶¶

3-4. There was insufficient notice to Bayer, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, that it should have

preserved the phone records at issue.

Case 3:05-cv-03978-CRB Document 84 Filed 02/29/08 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

B. Request No. 2

The motion to compel is granted as to this request. Whether or not Mr. Setiabudi and Mr.

Nguyen were similarly situated to Ms. Lockett raises factual questions to which the requested

discovery may be relevant. Moreover, this Court cannot predetermine the issue of similar situation

prior to completion of discovery.

C. Request No. 3

The motion to compel is conditionally denied as to this request. If Bayer stipulates that it

will not, at trial, argue or present evidence that Bayer has, in effect, a worldwide policy of zero

tolerance with respect to falsification and that all employees found to falsify are uniformly

terminated, then the request is overbroad. If Bayer is not willing to so stipulate, then the motion to

compel is granted to the extent that Ms. Lockett can identify specific instances in which she has a

good faith belief that the zero tolerance policy was not followed (e.g., the European incident

mentioned in the document request).

Although the Court is conditionally denying the motion as to this request, Bayer is still

required to produce documents related to any termination (based on alleged falsification) by the

decisionmakers at issue, who the Court understands are all based in the Berkeley Business Unit. Ms.

Lockett is entitled to documents, including those which describe the investigation and reasons for

termination starting from August 2003, even though this will require Bayer to do a manual search

for documents. The names and other identifying information of the terminated employees may be

redacted, although the Court does not bar Ms. Lockett from seeking unredacted information if

necessary. 

In addition, Bayer is required to produce any evidence (and related documents) in the log

book on discipline (for the same period discussed above) that was discussed at the hearing on the

motion to compel, which reflect whether any discipline short of termination based on an employee’s

alleged falsification. Names may be redacted.

D. Request Nos. 6 and 7

The Court reserves ruling on the motion to compel with respect to these requests. The

parties shall further meet and confer on the requests. Bayer has represented to the Court that it will

Case 3:05-cv-03978-CRB Document 84 Filed 02/29/08 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

produce all documents related to the alleged bases of termination as identified in Exhibit E of the

Kuhlemann declaration. See Kuhlemann Decl., Ex. E (letter from K. Weidling to J. Lockett, dated

8/10/2004). Should Bayer not stipulate that it will not put on evidence at trial of other alleged

falsification of records by Plaintiff, the scope of discovery should be expanded accordingly.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. To the

extent the motion is granted, documents shall be produced by March 28, 2008. The parties shall

report back to the Court on the results of their meet and confer on Requests Nos. 6 and 7 no later

than two weeks from the date of this order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 53.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03978-CRB Document 84 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3