Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00707/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00707-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

MARY J. WALTON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

K-MART, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-0707 PJH (BZ)

THIRD DISCOVERY ORDER

After plaintiff moved to compel defendant to provide

further responses to her Special Interrogatories and Requests

for Production of Documents, defendant amended many of its

responses. As the court understands the present discovery

posture, the following issues remain: 

With respect to the store’s full-time employees at the

time plaintiff was terminated, defendant’s Amended Special

Interrogatory responses set forth those employees’ names,

employment status, age, job title, and dates of employment. 

Defendant also provided information regarding both part and

full-time employees that were hired after plaintiff was

terminated including those employees’ code, job title, hire

date, age, and if applicable termination date. Defendant did

Case 4:07-cv-00707-PJH Document 43 Filed 11/28/07 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

2

not provide the names, or other contact information, for the

employees hired after plaintiff was terminated. Nor did

defendant provide any information regarding part-time

employees other than those hired after plaintiff lost her job. 

Defendant refused to produce the performance appraisal

forms requested by plaintiff, but did provide a redacted

version of its Associate Performance Recap covering the period

at issue.

Having reviewed the papers before me and good cause

appearing, find no need for argument and VACATE the December

5, 2007 hearing. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling further

responses to Special Interrogatories Number 4,5, 6, 7, and 10

as well as Requests for Production of Documents Number

1 is GRANTED, to the extent that defendant is required to

provide further responses regarding the subject employees’

name, date of birth, job title, position or assignment, date

of hire and, where applicable, date of termination when it did

not provide such information in its amended responses.

Information regarding the store’s part-time employees 

during the workforce reductions is relevant to whether

plaintiff was terminated as a result of a bona fide workplace

adjustment or for an illegal purpose. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce

documents in response to her Request for Production Number 2

is DENIED. The request is extremely broad and plaintiff has

failed to show why the subject employees’ payroll or

compensation records are relevant to her claims for relief.

Case 4:07-cv-00707-PJH Document 43 Filed 11/28/07 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

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

Requests for Production of Documents Number 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, and 19 is GRANTED in part. The six requests essentially

seek all documents reflecting the subject employees’ name,

date of birth, job title, position or assignment, full-time or

part-time status, address telephone number, date of hire, and

where applicable date of termination. The requests are overly

broad as they would require defendant to produce essentially

every document on each of the subject employees, even if they

have nothing to do with the issues in the litigation. 

However, plaintiff is entitled to review documents in order to

confirm that she obtains accurate information. In the

interest of expediting discovery, defendant is only required

to produce one document that reflects the name, date of birth,

job title, position or assignment, full or part-time status,

date of hire, and date of termination (where applicable) with

regards to each subject employee where possible. If defendant

is not in possession of a single document that reflects such

information, defendant can provide multiple documents for each

subject employee. Plaintiff is cautioned that henceforth, the

court will not rewrite her discovery requests. 

4. Because defendant has asserted that it relied on the

employee evaluations to decide who was terminated as a result

of the workforce adjustment program, these evaluations are

discoverable. Defendant is ORDERED to produce documents in

response to plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents

numbers 24, 26, and 27. 

Defendants’s reliance on state court cases interpreting

Case 4:07-cv-00707-PJH Document 43 Filed 11/28/07 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

the California right of privacy is somewhat misplaced. “The

federal Constitution implicitly recognizes a right to privacy

that requires a balancing test to be utilized whenever

discovery requests intrude on the privacy interests of a party

or non-party.” Roberts v. Americable Intern. Inc. 883 F.Supp.

499, 506 (E.D. Cal. 1995). Here, plaintiff will be unable to

prosecute her claims if she cannot gather evidence of

discrimination. I am satisfied that plaintiff’s need for the

information I am ordering defendant to provide, outweighs the

minimal intrusion into the employees’ privacy interests. Soto

v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616-617 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Plaintiff has not shown that her need for each employee’s

address and telephone number outweighs the privacy interests

of the employees.

Defendant shall provide amended responses and documents

by December 17, 2007. In view of the employees’ privacy

interests, documents shall be produced pursuant to an

attorneys’ eyes only protective order. If the parties cannot

agree on an order, the documents shall be produced pursuant to

the model Stipulated Protective Order found on the court’s

website. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Some of her 

discovery was poorly drafted, and she did not comply with

Civil L.R. 37-3 and 7-8(a). 

Dated: November 28, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\WALTON v. K-MART\third discovery order.BZ VERSION.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-00707-PJH Document 43 Filed 11/28/07 Page 4 of 4