Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 531, 544, 545 and 547. 

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 EXPRESS,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-2659 SI; C 03-2878 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL LIMITED

DEPOSITION OF DR. HATER

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 Plaintiffs seek a twohour deposition of Dr. John Hater, an industrial psychologist who developed a validation study for the

Customer Service Representative biodata instrument. According to the declaration of Dr. Jennifer

Dembowski (previously submitted by FedEx), the biodata instrument was developed and validated for

use in selecting customer service representatives, but it was never implemented by FedEx. See Pl’s

Motion Ex. 6 at ¶ 4 (Dembowski Decl.). FedEx produced the validation study to plaintiffs in November

2006, after Dr. Hater had been deposed. 

Plaintiffs contend they should be permitted to depose Dr. Hater regarding the biodata instrument

and the validation study because they are entitled to know about any alternatives to the Basic Skills Test

that FedEx contemplated or developed, as well as its reasons for failing to implement such alternatives.

The Court agrees. Defendant asserts that the study is not relevant because the study validated the

instrument based on retention and not on any performance related criteria. While defendant’s

characterization of the study may be correct, plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery on this study and

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 588 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

determine for themselves the significance of the study and the biodata instrument.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion may take a two hour telephone or

videoconference deposition of Dr. Hater regarding the biodata instrument and the validity study. The

parties shall meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 588 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2