Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02126/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02126-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. SMITH and JOSE

LEMUS,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-2126 JSW (BZ)

SEVENTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel further

responses to their requests for production of documents, set

one, numbers 6 and 7, and set two, numbers 26, 37, 52, 53, 62,

73, 74, 77, 78, 81, and 83 - 86. For the reasons set forth

below, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and defendant is

HEREBY ORDERED to provide further responses as follows:

1. With regards to the documents produced in response to

set one, request number 6, defendant shall produce the

applications in a manner that will allow plaintiffs to match

the applications and resumes to the specific manager

positions. If defendant has to un-redact the names of the

Case 3:07-cv-02126-JSW Document 115 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 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

1 The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to stipulate to an

amended protective order that includes an “Attorneys Eyes Only”

provision and to submit that order for Judge White’s approval

by no later than September 19, 2008. I urge the parties to use

the sample protective order located on the Court’s website. 

2

candidates in order to comply with this order, the

applications can be produced pursuant to an “Attorneys Eyes

Only” protective order.1

2. As ordered in the Fifth Discovery Order, defendant

shall produce all documents in response to set one, request

number 7 for job number 38854 (subject to limitations set

forth in that order). According to plaintiffs, they have

received the documents defendant produced to the EEOC, and

requested documents for plaintiff Lemus and the selectee for

job number 38854. Plaintiffs claim that defendant have not

produced the requested documents for the unsuccessful

candidates for the job. Based on the transcripts of the meet

and confer sessions lodged with the court, it appears that

defendant first denied that I ordered it to produce the

documents and later agreed to produce the documents. 

Defendant now contends that it searched for the documents and

subsequently discovered it had already produced all responsive

documents. Plaintiffs imply that defendant are withholding or

have destroyed the responsive documents regarding the

unsuccessful candidates for the position. If defendant still

contends that it has conducted a diligent search and has

produced all responsive documents, it shall provide a

declaration to that effect from the person responsible for the

search and production, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 3:07-cv-02126-JSW Document 115 Filed 09/17/08 Page 2 of 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

3

11 and 26(g), by no later than September 24, 2008. Otherwise

defendant shall produce the documents by that date.

3. Defendant shall produce documents in response to set

two, requests 26, 37, 52 and 53. The need for plaintiffs to

discover this information outweighs the privacy interests of

the employees involved, which are adequately addressed by

redacting personal information from the documents and

producing the documents pursuant to the “attorney’s eyes only”

protective order. 

4. With regards to plaintiffs’ set two, request 62,

defendant shall produce the data separated into ITUSS and ITI

data.

5. As to set two, requests 73 and 74, defendant shall

extend its table to include the employees’ pay grade.

6. As to set two, requests 77 and 78, defendant shall

produce the performance scores of the individuals in question

linked to their ages subject to the “attorney’s eyes only”

protective order. 

7. With regards to set two, request 81, defendant shall

produce the performance evaluations, job classifications, and

rotation agreements for Newzell, Dale, Hunt and Abinante

subject to the “attorney’s eyes only” protective order. 

8. As to set two, requests 83 - 86, defendant shall

produce the personnel files and performance evaluations of

Lemons, Savage, McKinnon and DePorto subject to the

“attorney’s eyes only” protective order.

9. Defendant shall provide the further responses, as set

forth in this order, by not later than Wednesday, September

Case 3:07-cv-02126-JSW Document 115 Filed 09/17/08 Page 3 of 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

4

24, 2008.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED IN PART as to plaintiffs’

request for an order compelling defendant to produce Ralph

Cable for deposition. Plaintiffs did not comply with the

procedures set forth in my initial discovery order required to

obtain leave to bring a motion to compel on this issue.

Dated: September 17, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\SMITH V. PG&E\DISC7ORD.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02126-JSW Document 115 Filed 09/17/08 Page 4 of 4