Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-21/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

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 429, 433 and 434.

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 EXPRESS,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-2659 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:

DEPOSITIONS

By letter briefs, the parties seek resolution of a dispute concerning twenty depositions plaintiffs

have recently noticed.1 Defendant objects to the depositions on several grounds. First, defendant

contends that the notices are too general and that defendant will be unable to determine which

individuals are the “persons most knowledgeable” about the subject matters described. The Court has

reviewed the deposition notices and disagrees. The notices request deponents who are “most

knowledgeable” about particular decisions and events, and many specify a time period. For the most

part, the depositions sought are fairly limited in nature; for example, one notice seeks the person most

knowledgeable about “any allegation by FedEx that Richard Lopez stole and box and any video of

same.” 

Defendants also object to the depositions on the ground that they seek “anecdotal” information

inappropriate in a class action. However, “anecdotal” information is relevant to proving – or disproving

– allegations in a class action. See Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (noting in class

context that “[a]necdotal testimony recounting personal experiences of discrimination plays an

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 437 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

important role in Title VII litigation.”). Moreover, presumably both sides intend to present “anecdotal”

testimony at trial from class members regarding their experiences working at FedEx. 

Finally, FedEx complains about the timing of plaintiffs’ deposition notices. Plaintiffs’ notices

were issued on July 25 and July 26, 2006, and discovery is set to close August 11, 2006. The parties

dispute the reasons for the timing of plaintiffs’ deposition notices, with each side blaming the other.

Although plaintiffs assert that the relative lateness of the deposition notices is due, at least in part, to the

fact that defendant produced personnel records on June 6, 2006, the Court is not persuaded that this

production fully explains the timing of plaintiffs’ deposition notices. In addition, defendant states that

by the close of discovery, plaintiffs have noticed and are scheduled to take 86 depositions, and that a

number of employees have been deposed on multiple occasions. In light of this record, the Court is

sensitive to defendant’s concerns and concludes it is appropriate to limit the depositions. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs may select 10 of the noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The depositions

shall be completed no later than August 21, 2005, unless the parties agree to a different date by

stipulation. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the 10 depositions, and if

there is a dispute as to who the “person most knowledgeable” is for a deposition, FedEx shall produce

the supervising manager for the employee in question during the relevant time period. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 437 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 2