Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 individual defendants are named as defendants on plaintiff’s § 1981 claim, but not on

plaintiff’s Title VII claim.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOYSE HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4069 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

I. Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents regarding individual defendants’ financial

condition (Docket Nos. 62 and 70)

Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents relating to the individual defendants’

financial condition. Plaintiff contends that this discovery is relevant to the punitive damages claims

against these defendants. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing, inter alia, that as a matter of law

individual defendants cannot be held liable for any damages under either Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.1

Defendants are correct that the individual defendants may not be held personally liable under

Title VII. See Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993). However, although the

Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether individual defendants may be liable under 42

U.S.C. § 1981, other circuits have allowed such claims. See, e.g., Whidbee v. Gharzarelli Food

Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62, 75 (2d Cir. 2000); Al-Khazraji v. St. Francis College, 784 F.2d 505, 518

(3d Cir. 1986), aff’d on other grounds, 481 U.S. 604 (1987); Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation

Ass’n, 517 F.2d 1141, 1146 (4th Cir. 1975). Neither party addresses this authority. 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 76 Filed 03/13/07 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

 Neither party provided the Court with a copy of the document requests and interrogatories at

issue, and thus this order relies on the parties’ description of the discovery.

2

 Because the parties have not fully briefed the issue, the Court does not at this time decide

whether punitive damages are available against the individual defendants in this action. However, the

Court will permit plaintiff’s discovery relevant to this damages claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

plaintiff’s motion to compel documents regarding the individual defendants’ financial condition. Such

discovery may be produced pursuant to a protective order.

II. Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions (Docket Nos. 63 and 69)

Plaintiff seeks to compel the depositions of two individual defendants and two percipient

witnesses. Plaintiff states that at a recent deposition, counsel agreed on the record that plaintiff could

take these depositions past the discovery cutoff, but that now defendants are refusing to abide by that

agreement. Defendants, in contrast, state that they only agreed that plaintiff could take the individual

defendants’ depositions up to one week past the February 15, 2007 discovery cut-off – which plaintiff

failed to do – and that they never agreed to allow depositions of percipient witnesses past the cut-off.

 Inexplicably, neither party has provided the Court with an excerpt of the deposition transcript

documenting the parties’ agreement. Without a copy of that agreement, the Court is unable to determine

whose version of events is correct. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel

without prejudice to renewal. If plaintiff renews this motion, plaintiff shall submit a copy of the

deposition excerpt documenting the parties’ agreement.

III. Plaintiff’s motion to compel documents and answers to interrogatories (Docket Nos. 61 and

68)2

Plaintiff moves to compel the following categories of documents: (1) employment records of the

individual named defendants Deely, Hall and Shelton; non-party employees who allegedly complained

about plaintiff; and “similarly-situated” employees (Document Requests 1-8); (2) statistical information

regarding the employment of African-Americans in management positions (Requests 33-34); (3) EEO

complaints and investigations involving race discrimination against Amtrak in the Pacific Division, and

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 76 Filed 03/13/07 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

against named defendants Deely, Hall and Shelton (Requests 35-37, 48 and 53); and (4) Amtrak’s

documentation of plaintiff’s protected activities (Requests 27, 44 and 47). 

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to interrogatories requesting the following

information: (1) the identity of African-Americans who reported to the individual defendants Deely,

Hall and Shelton (Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3 and 4); (2) Amtrak’s documentation of plaintiff’s protected

activities (No. 8); (3) other similarly-situated managers terminated by Amtrak (Nos. 15-16); (4) the

numbers of African-Americans hired and fired in the Pacific Division (Nos. 17-20); (5) the identity of

persons suing Amtrak for racial discrimination (No. 21); and (6) the basis for defendant’s denial of

plaintiff’s request for admissions (Nos. 22-25).

Defendant opposes this discovery on numerous grounds. First, defendant complains that plaintiff

delayed in moving to compel until just before the deadline for such motions. Although the Court is

sympathetic to defendants’ concerns, the fact remains that plaintiff’s motion is timely. However, certain

of the document requests and interrogatories seek statistical information that would be appropriate only

for expert analysis; the deadline for expert disclosures has passed, and the deadline for filing dispositive

motions is imminent. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has waited too long to compel

statistical information regarding the employment of African-Americans in management positions

(document requests 33-34), and information about the numbers of African-Americans hired and fired

in the Pacific Division. 

However, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to the balance of the discovery sought, with

certain limitations. Defendant objects that certain of the interrogatories, such as interrogatory numbers

15 and 16, are burdensome because they seek information on a nationwide basis. The Court agrees, and

limits the geographic scope of the discovery to the Pacific Division. Defendants’ remaining objections

are not well-founded, and the Court finds that the discovery sought is relevant to plaintiff’s claims of

discrimination and retaliation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 76 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 3