Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-1/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

1

 Letter briefs filed as docket entries #313, #314, #315 (plus declarations at #316 and #317, with

exhibits ##318-333), #334 and #335.

2

Initially, the parties disputed the correct number of comparators whose personnel files must be

produced. Defendant maintained that the Court’s order called for only the remaining 12 of 33 comparators,

while plaintiffs sought production of files for 21 additional comparators and ultimately for 180 individuals.

Defendant objected that this request was burdensome but produced electronic personnel files for 110

individuals who received promotions to positions for which one of the five named plaintiffs at issue applied.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-02659 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs,1 the parties seek resolution of a discovery dispute regarding defendant’s compliance

with this Court’s March 21, 2005 Order. That order compelled production of “personnel files for the remaining

12 of the 33 comparators, and complete filesfor all comparators, including performance reviews,” “ASPIRE

records for comparators,” and “answers to interrogatories seeking the reasons why plaintiffs were not hired

forspecific jobs,” among other discovery. March 21, 2005 Order at 5. According to plaintiffs, defendant has

failed to produce complete personnel files for all of the comparators now identified, and has supplied only

“boilerplate” responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories regarding the reasons plaintiffs were not hired for certain

positions. Defendant contends that the “electronic personnel files” it has produced formany comparators are

sufficient for the Court’s order, that it has produced all responsive documents in its possession, and that its

interrogatory responses are adequate.2

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 349 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 6
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

While plaintiffs maintain their right to all 180 files, they now state that they are seeking only the production of

materials relating to plaintiff Kenneth Stevenson’s applications forlower management positions. See Pls.’ brief

#315 at 7. Accordingly, the Court considers only the sufficiency of defendant’s production of these materials.

2

Production of documents

In its final letter brief, docket entry #334, defendant states that its current document production fully

complies with this Court’s March 21, 2005 Order and consists of all available files in FedEx’s possession. To

the extent that the personnel files are in electronic format, and do not contain performance reviews, interview

notes, and ASPIRE records, it is because FedEx no longer retains those records. Plaintiffs argue that they

remain entitled to complete performance reviews, ASPIRE management training materials, complete ASPIRE

job packets, descriptive postings of the positions for which plaintiffs applied, and interview notes of panelists

for job interviews. In fact, FedEx has produced records “of the exact type sought” by plaintiffs for two

comparators, Tim Becker and Mike Aroz. Pls.’ brief #315 at 8; see #317, Willson Decl., and ##321-323,

Exs. D, E, and F. In plaintiffs’ view, defendant’s statement that it no longer possesses such documents for

other comparators is a departure from FedEx’s prior promises to produce these materials. Consequently,

plaintiffs ask the Court to order defendant to produce these documents and submit a sworn statement regarding

its efforts at production, or be subject to an inference that the documents would have supported plaintiffs’

claims. 

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the electronic versions ofpersonnelfiles are notsufficient to allow

comparisons of job applicants, and that it appears that FedEx did maintain paper personnel records, with

ASPIRE materials, at least in some cases. See ##321-323, Willson Decl., Exs. D, E, and F. Therefore,

defendant’s current production is either incomplete, ifthose documents indeed exist for other comparators, or

complete, if those documents once existed but are no longer in FedEx’s possession. The Court hereby

ORDERS that defendant either produce the following documents or provide a sworn statement regarding the

reasons these documents are unavailable:(1) complete performance reviewsforplaintiffs and the comparators;

(2) complete ASPIRE management training materials for plaintiffs and the comparators; (3) complete ASPIRE

job packets for plaintiffs and the comparators for lower management positions; (4) descriptive postings ofthe

positions for which plaintiffs applied; and (5) interview notes of panelists for the jobs at issue. To the extent

that this production does not include responsive documents because they no longer exist in either paper or

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 349 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 6
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

electronic format, defendant’s declaration must state when it destroyed or ceased to retain these documents,

and the policies or reasons for their destruction. 

Defendant must submit this declaration to the Court on or before September 23, 2005. 

Responses to interrogatories

Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with defendant’s response to their interrogatories seeking the reasons for

promotion decisions. The response explains that applicants are ranked according to Credit Equivalency Value

(CEV) points, listsfour generalreasons why employees were not promoted, and states that “[a]part fromCEV

scores and class ranking, it is not practical to provide a narrative because no less than twelve (12) different

hiring managers made selections from CEV scores and rankings for positions applied for by Plaintiff

Stevenson.” Pls.’ brief #313, Ex. C. Defendant contends that no further response is available or required,

because positions are awarded based on CEV points. 

As plaintiffs point out, however, CEV scores are not used in all promotions, and they do not determine

which applicant is hired in all cases. Plaintiffs are entitled to specific answers regarding the promotions for

which they applied, and the Court considers defendant’s response inadequate. Accordingly, defendant is

hereby ORDERED to supply the reasons why plaintiffs were not hired forspecific jobs. If defendant is unable

to retrieve this information or to identify the individuals with that information, it must so state.

Defendant’s supplementalresponse must be provided to plaintiffs onorbefore September23, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 349 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 6
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

 Letter briefs filed as docket entries #313, #314, #315 (plus declarations at #316 and #317, with

exhibits ##318-333), #334 and #335.

2

Initially, the parties disputed the correct number of comparators whose personnel files must be

produced. Defendant maintained that the Court’s order called for only the remaining 12 of 33 comparators,

while plaintiffs sought production of files for 21 additional comparators and ultimately for 180 individuals.

Defendant objected that this request was burdensome but produced electronic personnel files for 110

individuals who received promotions to positions for which one of the five named plaintiffs at issue applied.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-02659 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs,1 the parties seek resolution of a discovery dispute regarding defendant’s compliance

with this Court’s March 21, 2005 Order. That order compelled production of “personnel files for the remaining

12 of the 33 comparators, and complete filesfor all comparators, including performance reviews,” “ASPIRE

records for comparators,” and “answers to interrogatories seeking the reasons why plaintiffs were not hired

forspecific jobs,” among other discovery. March 21, 2005 Order at 5. According to plaintiffs, defendant has

failed to produce complete personnel files for all of the comparators now identified, and has supplied only

“boilerplate” responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories regarding the reasons plaintiffs were not hired for certain

positions. Defendant contends that the “electronic personnel files” it has produced formany comparators are

sufficient for the Court’s order, that it has produced all responsive documents in its possession, and that its

interrogatory responses are adequate.2

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 349 Filed 09/07/05 Page 4 of 6
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

While plaintiffs maintain their right to all 180 files, they now state that they are seeking only the production of

materials relating to plaintiff Kenneth Stevenson’s applications forlower management positions. See Pls.’ brief

#315 at 7. Accordingly, the Court considers only the sufficiency of defendant’s production of these materials.

2

Production of documents

In its final letter brief, docket entry #334, defendant states that its current document production fully

complies with this Court’s March 21, 2005 Order and consists of all available files in FedEx’s possession. To

the extent that the personnel files are in electronic format, and do not contain performance reviews, interview

notes, and ASPIRE records, it is because FedEx no longer retains those records. Plaintiffs argue that they

remain entitled to complete performance reviews, ASPIRE management training materials, complete ASPIRE

job packets, descriptive postings of the positions for which plaintiffs applied, and interview notes of panelists

for job interviews. In fact, FedEx has produced records “of the exact type sought” by plaintiffs for two

comparators, Tim Becker and Mike Aroz. Pls.’ brief #315 at 8; see #317, Willson Decl., and ##321-323,

Exs. D, E, and F. In plaintiffs’ view, defendant’s statement that it no longer possesses such documents for

other comparators is a departure from FedEx’s prior promises to produce these materials. Consequently,

plaintiffs ask the Court to order defendant to produce these documents and submit a sworn statement regarding

its efforts at production, or be subject to an inference that the documents would have supported plaintiffs’

claims. 

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the electronic versions ofpersonnelfiles are notsufficient to allow

comparisons of job applicants, and that it appears that FedEx did maintain paper personnel records, with

ASPIRE materials, at least in some cases. See ##321-323, Willson Decl., Exs. D, E, and F. Therefore,

defendant’s current production is either incomplete, ifthose documents indeed exist for other comparators, or

complete, if those documents once existed but are no longer in FedEx’s possession. The Court hereby

ORDERS that defendant either produce the following documents or provide a sworn statement regarding the

reasons these documents are unavailable:(1) complete performance reviewsforplaintiffs and the comparators;

(2) complete ASPIRE management training materials for plaintiffs and the comparators; (3) complete ASPIRE

job packets for plaintiffs and the comparators for lower management positions; (4) descriptive postings ofthe

positions for which plaintiffs applied; and (5) interview notes of panelists for the jobs at issue. To the extent

that this production does not include responsive documents because they no longer exist in either paper or

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 349 Filed 09/07/05 Page 5 of 6
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

electronic format, defendant’s declaration must state when it destroyed or ceased to retain these documents,

and the policies or reasons for their destruction. 

Defendant must submit this declaration to the Court on or before September 23, 2005. 

Responses to interrogatories

Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with defendant’s response to their interrogatories seeking the reasons for

promotion decisions. The response explains that applicants are ranked according to Credit Equivalency Value

(CEV) points, listsfour generalreasons why employees were not promoted, and states that “[a]part fromCEV

scores and class ranking, it is not practical to provide a narrative because no less than twelve (12) different

hiring managers made selections from CEV scores and rankings for positions applied for by Plaintiff

Stevenson.” Pls.’ brief #313, Ex. C. Defendant contends that no further response is available or required,

because positions are awarded based on CEV points. 

As plaintiffs point out, however, CEV scores are not used in all promotions, and they do not determine

which applicant is hired in all cases. Plaintiffs are entitled to specific answers regarding the promotions for

which they applied, and the Court considers defendant’s response inadequate. Accordingly, defendant is

hereby ORDERED to supply the reasons why plaintiffs were not hired forspecific jobs. If defendant is unable

to retrieve this information or to identify the individuals with that information, it must so state.

Defendant’s supplementalresponse must be provided to plaintiffs onorbefore September23, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 349 Filed 09/07/05 Page 6 of 6