Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02347/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02347-3/pdf.json

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

---

14-cv-02347-NC

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

JIMMY PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL EXPRESS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.14-cv-02347-NC 

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 35

Plaintiff Jimmy Perkins moves to compel production of documents concerning 

Durham’s drug-testing data, and seeks to limit defendants’ subpoena of First Transit. 

Defendants oppose Perkins’ requests. Defendants also ask the Court to compel Perkins to 

produce information concerning any medical care or treatment he received in the last five 

years. Finally, defendants seek to depose Perkins for an additional three hours. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In general, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, “[f]or 

good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action.” Id. Information is relevant for discovery purposes if it “appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

Nonetheless, even when the information sought by the parties in a civil lawsuit is 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 5
14-cv-02347-NC 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

relevant, the Court must limit the scope of discovery if it determines that (1) “the discovery 

sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other 

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”; (2) “the party seeking 

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action”; 

or (3) “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, 

considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in 

resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

In other words, the Court seeks to “strike[] the proper balance between permitting 

relevant discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to what is 

proportional to the case.” Kaiser v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 12-cv-01311 DMR, 2013 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63855, at *10 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013).

II. DISCUSSION

Perkins and defendants raised multiple discovery issues. See Dkt. Nos. 33, 35-37. 

During oral argument on January 7, 2015, the parties indicated that they resolved 

document production issues related to Perkins’ job search (Defense Interrogatory No. 1, 

Defense RFP No. 8), as well as to Perkins’ income (Defense Interrogatory No. 2, Defense 

RFP No. 10). Perkins should have already produced all responsive, non-privileged

documents to those requests. Perkins’ counsel at the discovery hearing had committed to 

so by January 21, 2015. 

The Court addresses the following four unresolved issues below.

A. First Transit Documents 

Perkins seeks to limit defendants’ subpoena for documents to First Transit. 

Specifically, Perkins objects to defendants’ seeking a “copy of any drug testing policy 

applicable to Mr. Perkins and any acknowledgment of that policy by Mr. Perkins.” Dkt. 

No. 33 at 6 (subpoena to First Transit). Perkins contends that such a drug-testing 

document from his current employer would be “irrelevant and unlikely to lead to 

admissible evidence.” Id. at 2 (Perkins’ discovery letter). 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 5
14-cv-02347-NC 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

Defendants point out Perkins’ allegation that defendant Durham’s drug-testing 

policy is unreasonable or unlawful. Thus, according to defendants, evidence that Perkins’ 

new employer has a drug-testing policy similar to that of Durham’s supports a theory they 

intend to advance at trial—that Durham’s drug testing policy is part of the industry 

standard. The Court agrees. 

Accordingly, the Court orders Perkins to produce all responsive, non-privileged 

documents related to any drug testing policy at First Transit by February 18, 2015. 

Additionally, the Court orders Perkins to produce responsive, non-privileged 

documents relating to his application for employment with First Transit, as described in 

defendants’ subpoena to First Transit. Dkt. No. 33 at 6 (Rider No. 1). Perkins expresses

privacy concerns over his personnel file and disciplinary documents. But defendants 

emphasized at the hearing they are not seeking such documents. Because defendants only 

seek documents limited to Perkins’ efforts at mitigation, the Court denies Perkins’ request 

to limit production under the subpoena.

B. Information Regarding Employee Testing 

Perkins moves to compel answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories Nos. 3, 6-11, which

concern drug-testing data performed by defendants or third party vendors on behalf of 

defendants. At the hearing, defendants stated they produced some responsive data already. 

Defendants also committed to obtaining the responsive data from third party vendors. Yet 

defendants contend they have no control over when the third party vendors would produce 

the data. 

Perkins argues defendants already possess, but have not yet produced, some of these 

responsive documents, as evidenced by their past production. 

The Court orders defendants to produce all responsive, non-privileged information 

and documents in defendants’ custody, control, or possession. As to documents not

presently in defendants’ custody, control, or possession, defendants must produce nonprivileged, responsive documents to Perkins on a rolling basis as they receive them from

third party vendors. Defendants must produce all non-privileged, responsive documents—

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 5
14-cv-02347-NC 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

whether or not in defendants’ current custody, control, or possession—by February 18, 

2015.

C. Perkins’ Medical Treatment Documents 

Defendants seek documents and responses from Perkins concerning any medical 

treatment or care he may have received during the last five years. Dkt. No. 35 (citing 

Defense Interrogatory No. 3 and Defense RFP No. 15). Perkins objects to these requests 

on privacy and relevancy grounds. Dkt. Nos. 37 at 2; 35-2 at 16. But defendants argue 

that this information goes to test Perkins’ assertion that he suffered multi-million dollar 

emotional distress damages.

The Court agrees with defendants on this point about relevance. As to Perkins’ 

concerns over the privacy of his medical records, the Court notes that these documents will 

be produced subject to the protective order. See Dkt. No. 30. 

For these reasons, the Court orders Perkins to produce all non-privileged,

responsive documents on this topic by February 18, 2015. 

D. Additional Deposition Hours 

Finally, defendants request that the Court allow them to depose Perkins for three 

more hours. Although the usual rule is that a deposition is limited to one day of seven 

hours, a court “must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly 

examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance

impedes or delays the examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). 

Here, defendants have already deposed Perkins for seven hours. But in light of this 

Order, the Court will grant defendants an additional two hours to depose Perkins. The 

Court expects defendants to use that time to question Perkins about the documents 

described in this Order. 

This deposition must take place before the discovery cut-off currently set for March 

6, 2015. Dkt. No. 27. 

//

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 5
14-cv-02347-NC 5

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

III. CONCLUSION

As explained above, the Court orders both defendants and Perkins to produce 

documents outlined in this Order by February 18, 2015. The parties must make 

arrangements for defendants to depose Perkins before the March 6 discovery cut-off. 

The Court reminds the parties that the next case management conference is set for 

February 11, 2015 at the San Jose Courthouse. The parties must file a joint case 

management statement must by February 4, 2015. Counsel are permitted to appear 

telephonically and must call the Courtroom Deputy at 408.535.5343 for further 

arrangements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 40 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 5