Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03562/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03562-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

*E-FILED 10/23/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT SALYER, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALYER AMERICAN FRESH FOODS, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-3562 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Salyer American Fresh Foods (“SAFF”) moves to compel further responses to

document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission from plaintiff Scott Salyer (“Salyer”). 

The motion was heard on October 11, 2006. Based on the parties’ briefing, the argument of counsel,

and the record herein, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

 II. BACKGROUND

Salyer is a part owner of his family’s business, SAFF. Disputes arose between the owners as

to the management and operations of SAFF and there has been prior litigation relating to those

disputes in Monterey County Superior Court. Salyer brought this action after his employment with

SAFF ended, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for complaining that SAFF employee Tom

Welch engaged in acts of sexual harassment.

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 137 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 At the hearing, SAFF argued that the request remains in dispute as to “all documents,” not

just the investigator’s report.

2

III. DISCUSSION

A. Document Requests

Request No. 2

This request seeks documents relating to an investigation of Tom Welch. SAFF believes that

there exists an “investigator’s report” that plaintiff has neither produced nor listed on a privilege

log.1

 SAFF further contends that any claim of privilege or work product protection has been waived

because, it asserts, the report was shown to an individual named Mark Grewal, and, moreover, the

work product protection can otherwise be overcome by a showing of necessity. At the hearing,

Salyer conceded that the existing response and the opposition brief did not adequately address these

points. Salyer offered to provide a further declaration under oath clarifying and establishing that no

further responsive documents exist. Salyer shall do so.

 Request No. 3

This request seeks a report that was prepared by Deloitte & Touche at the request of Salyer’s

former litigation counsel, which is being withheld as privileged and as work product. SAFF

contends privilege and work product protection has been waived, because Mark Grewal made

certain statements at SAFF board meetings that arguably imply he had previously been shown the

report. Grewal has responded with a declaration that he has never seen the report, and explaining his

comments at the board meetings as referring only to data that may (or may not) underlie the report. 

While SAFF argues that Grewal’s declaration is not credible, the record as a whole does not support

the conclusion that privilege or work product protection has been waived. No further response to

this request will be required. 

Request 4

This request seeks all documents supporting Salyer’s damage claims. Salyer asserts that he

has not calculated all his damages yet and will need expert analysis to do so. He contends, however,

that the only responsive documents that presently exist have been produced and or consist of SAFF’s

own financial records. At the hearing, Salyer agreed to serve an amended response identifying with

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 137 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 5
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

specificity the particular documents on which he will rely to support his damages claims. He shall

do so. 

Requests 12 & 13

This request seeks all documents supporting Salyer’s claims that his termination was

pretextual and retaliatory. Salyer contends all documents have been produced. At the hearing,

Salyer agreed to serve an amended response identifying with specificity the particular documents on

which he will rely to support these specific contentions. He shall do so. 

B. Interrogatories

Interrogatory No. 1

This interrogatory calls for Salyer to disclose all buy-out offers he made to other SAFF

shareholders. Although the relevance is tenuous, Salyer shall serve an amended response listing any

such offers made prior to the date on which the action in Monterey County Superior Court was filed.

Interrogatory No. 2

This interrogatory asks for the number of times Salyer voted to approve prepayment of

vendor expenses. Salyer’s response was that he cannot recall. The response contains additional

argument as to why Salyer views his votes to approve those expenses as not legally significant. 

SAFF’s disagreement with those contentions, however, is not a basis for compelling a further

response. Salyer cannot be compelled to remember what he has stated he does not recall. Although

Salyer could, in theory, be compelled to review the corporate records of SAFF and tally the number

of times he voted in that manner, SAFF has offered no reason why Salyer is in a better position to do

so than SAFF itself. Nevertheless, at the hearing, Salyer agreed to serve an amended response

identifying with specificity the particular documents in which further responsive information can be

found. He shall do so. 

Interrogatory Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 & 21

These interrogatories all seek information regarding the nature and extent of the sexual

harassment alleged by Salyer, including such details as the identity of the victims, and what actions

Salyer took in response. Salyer’s answers fully and completely explain his theory of what

constituted the harassment and what evidence he has thereof. SAFF’s arguments that the responses

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 137 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 5
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 

C 05-3562 JW (RS) 

4

are insufficient are nothing more than a quarrel on the merits. Among other things, SAFF cites

investigative reports that found no harassment by Welch, and argues that Salyer’s responses do not

constitute sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. While SAFF’s belief that Salyer’s evidence is

legally insufficient may be a basis to seek summary judgment or to believe that it will prevail at trial,

it is not a reason to compel further responses. No such responses to these interrogatories, therefore,

will be required.

Interrogatory No. 17

This interrogatory requests Salyer to identify specific documents he contends were deleted

from SAFF computers, based on an investigation performed in March of 2005. At the hearing,

Salyer agreed to serve an amended response identifying with specificity what documents he

presently believes were deleted. He shall do so.

C. Requests for Admission

Salyer denied virtually all of the requests for admission propounded to him. Although his

responses contain additional argument and explanation of his contentions, the responses are not

unclear or evasive. As discussed at the hearing, SAFF’s belief that Salyer should have admitted the

matters at issue in light of SAFF’s view of the facts and evidence is not a basis to require Salyer to

serve amended responses. If SAFF’s view of the facts is correct, its remedy will be to apply for

recovery of its reasonable expenses incurred in proving the matters, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37

(c) (2).

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion is granted to the extent set forth above, and is otherwise denied. All further

responses required by this order shall be served within 20 days of this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 137 Filed 10/23/06 Page 4 of 5
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 

C 05-3562 JW (RS) 

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Rebecca Connolly Rebecca.Connolly@grunskylaw.com, Alice.Wilkerson@grunskylaw.com

Philip D. Dracht pdracht@foleybezek.com, ijung@foleybezek.com

Thomas G. Foley , Jr tfoley@foleybezek.com, smulder@foleybezek.com

Joy A. Jaeger jjaeger@gordonrees.com

Brian Maschler bmaschler@gordonrees.com

Andrew H. Swartz ahswartz@aol.com, marstond@ssklaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 10/23/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 137 Filed 10/23/06 Page 5 of 5