Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,

APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER,

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST

23, 2005 ORDER, AND ENTERING

PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: SNYDER

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT

On October 7, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion for sanction and

defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the August 23, 2005 order. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion for sanctions; APPOINTS a Special Master pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 53; DENIES defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the August 23, 2005 order;

and GRANTS defendant’s alternative request to enter a protective order.

1. Defendant’s Motion to Find Mr. McCoy in Contempt and for Sanctions

Defendant seeks an order holding plaintiff’s attorneyWaukeen McCoy in contemptfor violationofthis

Court’s March 16, 2005 order, which states, “No party shall pose any objections other than as a matter of

form, no coaching, no explaining questions and/or answers, no instructionto not answer during anydeposition.”

Defendant contends that Mr. McCoy violated the order during the August 30, 2005 deposition of plaintiff

Bertha Duenas by being obstreperous, coaching Ms. Duenas by reframing defendant’s questions and her

answers, and instructing her not to answer on grounds unrelated to a recognized privilege. Defendant seeks

a number of sanctions against Mr. McCoy and plaintiffs.

In response, Mr. McCoy contends that his actions during the August 30, 2005 deposition do not

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 292 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

warrant any sanctions and that defendant’s counsel, Mr. Yost, engaged in provocative and harassing

questioning of Ms. Duenas. Mr. McCoy claims that he reframed Mr. Yost’s questions and Ms. Duenas’

answers because Ms. Duenas has difficulty with English and she needed to have an interpreter. Mr. McCoy

states that he only instructed Ms. Duenas not to answer questions thatwere unnecessarily private and intrusive,

or that were designed solely to harass Ms. Duenas. 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and the DVD of the deposition of Ms. Duenas. As a

general matter, the Courts notes that discovery in this case has been extremely and unnecessarily contentious,

and counsel for both parties have behaved less than admirably. With regard to the deposition of Ms. Duenas,

counselfor plaintiffimproperly coached Ms. Duenas on severaloccasions. Mr. McCoy’s claim that he needed

to rephrase questions and answers due to Ms. Duenas’ limited Englishskills is not borne out by the deposition.

However, the Court notes that in several instances (such as the questions regarding Ms. Duenas’ weight loss),

defense counsel’s questions were repetitive, confusing, and borderline harassing. 

Mr. McCoyalso instructedMs. Duenas not to answer questions regarding whether she was/is involved

in a sexual relationship with a co-plaintiff, Tanda Brown, as well as questions regarding her co-ownership of

property with Ms. Brown. Defendant states such questioning is relevant to show Ms. Duenas’ and Ms.

Brown’s biases and is necessary for impeachment at trial. The Court concludes any such relevance is minimal

at best given the fact that Ms. Duenas and Ms. Brown are both plaintiffs in this action and presumably their

interests are aligned. The Court findssuch questioning ofMs. Duenas is provocative, harassing and irrelevant.

Although plaintiff’s counselshould have stopped the depositionatthatpoint and sought guidance fromthe Court

rather than instructing the witness not to answer, the Court concludes that there was no harmas a result ofMr.

McCoy’s actions because the questions were improper. 

The Court concludes thatsanctions are not warranted and hereby DENIES defendant’s motion. The

Court will rule on the admissibility ofspecific deposition testimony (such as Mr. McCoy’s examination of Ms.

Duenas) if and when such testimony and any objections are submitted to the Court in connection with a

substantive motion. The Court will not order the further deposition ofMs. Duenas as defense counsel has had

ample opportunity to questionMs. Duenas, and a review ofthe deposition demonstrates that counsel was able

to question Ms. Duenas in a meaningful way.

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 292 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

 At the October 7, 2005 hearing, the Court announced its intention to appoint Mr. Swanson as a

discovery master and instructed the parties to inform the Court if either side had a conflictwith Mr. Swanson.

Counsel for defendant stated that defendant had no objection to Mr. Swanson. Plaintiffs have not filed any

statement ofobjectionwith the Court, and accordingly the Court assumes plaintiffs do not have any objection

to Mr. Swanson’s appointment.

3

2. Appointment of Special Master

Given the contentiousness ofdiscovery thus far in this case, it has become apparent that the parties are

incapable ofresolving their discovery disputes in an expeditious and orderly manner without further intervention

from this Court. As the Court has repeatedly explained to the parties, counsel’s behavior completely

undermines the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, which was passed by Congress to address “the dual

problems of cost and delay in Federalcivil litigation,” including the high costs associated with discovery abuse.

S. Rep. No. 101-416, at 6, 20 (1990).

Moreover, as another judge in this district explained long ago:

The discovery system depends absolutely on good faith and common sense

from counsel. The courts, sorely pressed by demands to try cases promptly

and to rule thoughtfully on potentially case dispositive motions, simply do not

have the resources to police closely the operation of the discovery process.

The whole system of civil adjudicationwould be ground to a virtual halt if the

courts were forced to intervene in even a modest percentage of discovery

transactions. That fact should impose on counsel an acute sense of

responsibility about how they handle discovery matters. They should strive to

be cooperative, practical and sensible, and should turn to the courts (or take

positions thatforce others to turn to the courts) only in extraordinary situations

that implicate truly significant interests.

In re Convergent Tech. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985). Counsel’s failure to comply with

these general principles convinces the Court that a discovery master is necessary to avoid wasting judicial

resources and preventing a timely resolution of this case. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Edward Swanson, Esq., of Swanson & McNamara, LLP, is appointed as Special Master to

supervise and preside over all remaining discovery in this case.1

a. If necessary, the SpecialMaster may attend all or portions of any remaining depositions, rule

on all objections made by counsel during the depositions, rule on any instructions by counselforthe deponent

not to answer a question, and order the deponent to respond to questions.

b. The Special Master shall immediately notify this Court if, during a deposition in which he is

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 292 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

“This litigation” includesthis case, C-04-0098 SI, and the related actionC-04-0099 SI, only. It does

not include any other cases, whether or not pending against FedEx and whether or not being prosecuted by

the same plaintiffs’ counsel. 

4

in attendance, any counsel fails to comply or cooperate fully with any of the Special Master’s rulings.

2. The Special Master’s hourly fee shall be $350.00. The Special Master shall, in his discretion,

allocate and assess the payment ofhis fees among the parties. The parties shall pay the SpecialMaster’s fees

within ten calendar days of assessment, unless otherwise excused by the Special Master or this Court.

3. At his earliest convenience, the Special Master shall contact the parties to discuss the execution

of his duties in connection with this order.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 23, 2005 Order Denying

Motion to Quash/Alternative Motion for Protective Order

On August 23, 2005, the Court issued an order denying defendant’s motion to quash a subpoena

issued by plaintiffs to a court reporter for the deposition transcript ofMichaelSnyder in the case ofRosalinda

Pettaway-Vint v. Federal Express Corp., currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Defendant has

filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, and alternatively seeks a protective order restricting the

dissemination of the Snyder deposition transcript.

The Court herebyDENIES defendant’smotionforreconsideration, and GRANTS defendant’s request

for a protective order. Dissemination of the Snyder deposition transcript, or any portion thereof, shall be

limited to plaintiffs’ attorneys, staff and expert witnesses as necessary forthe prosecution ofthis litigation.2 Any

portions of the Snyder deposition transcript filed with the Court shall be done under seal. If copies of the

deposition of any portion thereof have been disseminated to anyone, plaintiffs’ counsel shall retrieve them

immediately and inform the recipients of this order prohibiting dissemination of any of the contents of the

deposition transcript to anyone.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 292 Filed 10/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

motion for contempt and sanctions [# 209], DENIES defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the August

26, 2005 order [# 201], GRANTS defendant’s request for a protective order governing the Snyder

deposition [# 201], and APPOINTS a Special Master for the purpose of overseeing discovery in this case.

A copy of this Order shall be sent to Edward Swanson, Esq., Swanson & McNamara LLP, 300

Montgomery Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 292 Filed 10/13/05 Page 5 of 5