Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05434/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05434-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

JOHN EARL CAMPBELL

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION dba AMTRAK, JOE DEELY,

DOES 1 -15 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C05-5434 MJJ (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

AS MODIFIED

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

ENLARGE TIME FOR NON EXPERT

WITNESS DISCOVERY 

On April 17, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., Plaintiff JOHN EARL CAMPBELL (“Plaintiff”)

moved to compel Defendant NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION aka Amtrak

(“Defendant” or “Amtrak”) the further production of documents in response to Plaintiff’s First

Request for Production of Documents and to extend the cut off date for non expert discovery. The

hearing was held before The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte. Pamela Price appeared

telephonically, on behalf of Plaintiff. Cara Ching-Senaha appeared on behalf of Amtrak.

The COURT having read and considered the parties’ papers and oral argument, and

GOOD CAUSE appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel further documents responsive to Request for

Case 4:05-cv-05434-CW Document 77 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Production of Documents No. 3 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

follows: Amtrak shall produce within ten (10) business days of this signed

Order complaints of alleged racial discrimination made within the past seven

(7) years by African-American employees working within the Bay Area

locations where Plaintiff was assigned (see Motion (Doc. No. 22) at 12:17-20

(requesting such relief)), subject as appropriate to the parties’ protective

order;

(2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel further documents responsive to Request for

Production of Documents No. 4 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

follows: Amtrak shall produce within ten (10) business days of this signed

Order select documents from Steve Shelton’s personnel file, to consist of:

Shelton’s performance reviews, Shelton’s discipline records, and any other

record within Shelton’s personnel file, provided that each such record pertains

to Shelton’s role to promote racial diversity within Amtrak, Amtrak’s

commitment to affirmative action and to equal employment opportunity, or

any complaint and/or disciplinary action taken against Shelton for racial

discrimination, subject as appropriate to the parties’ protective order; 

(3) Plaintiff’s motion to compel further documents responsive to Request for

Production of Documents No. 15 is DENIED in its entirety, without prejudice

to a later motion Plaintiff may bring to compel Amtrak to produce records

described in Plaintiff’s Request No. 15, provided one or more claims for

which punitive damages are available against Amtrak survive the summary

judgment stage; 

(4) Following production in accordance with this Order, Defendant shall produce

a declaration stating that it has searched for and produced all relevant

documents responding to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, as

Case 4:05-cv-05434-CW Document 77 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

modified by the Court and the parties’ agreements;

(5) Defendant shall produce a privilege log in accordance with the Court’s

standing order and its Order Re Discovery Procedures (Doc. No. 27); and

(6) The remainder of relief requested in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-05434-CW Document 77 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 3