Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04011/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04011-15/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY J. HONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RIGHT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS,

INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-04011 PJH (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On January 27, 2006, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Subpoenas to Plaintiff’s Treating Physicians and to Aon

Corporation. In relevant part, the Court granted Defendant’s motion with respect to the subpoena to

Aon Corporation as to “(1) all documents regarding and reflecting all forms of compensation

Plaintiff received from her employment at Aon, (2) documents reflecting the date of Plaintiff’s

termination from Aon Corporation, and (3) documents from Plaintiff’s personnel file reflecting

whether her layoff was voluntary or involuntary, and the reasons she was selected for layoff.” Jan.

27, 2006 Order at 2:23-27. Defendant now seeks reconsideration of that Order, arguing that it is

entitled to further production of documents, specifically, additional documents relating to her

performance leading up to her termination from Aon. 

The Court granted Defendant’s motion to shorten time to hear the motion for reconsideration,

and the matter was fully briefed on March 21, 2006. This matter is appropriate for decision without

oral argument. 

To be entitled to reconsideration, a party must show: (1) that there is a material difference in

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 171 Filed 03/24/06 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

fact or law from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the order for which

reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after

the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

legal arguments that were presented to the Court before the entry of the order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Defendant failed even to cite this local rule or to make any attempt to show compliance with the

rule. After reviewing Defendant’s motion, the Court finds that it does not meet the standard for

reconsideration. 

Defendant argues that reconsideration is necessary primarily because a document produced

in response to the Court’s Order revealed that the reason for Plaintiff’s termination from Aon was

“Unsatisfactory Performance,” rather than merely a general layoff. Def.’s Mot. at Ex. D. At the

hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff was terminated as part of a layoff and did not

mention any unsatisfactory performance. Herbert Decl. Ex. 3 at 12:1-6. The Court is concerned that

this representation was potentially misleading, as Plaintiff’s counsel was already in possession of the

document showing that she was terminated for unsatisfactory performance. However, the basis for

the Court’s ruling on the Aon subpoena was that Defendant was entitled to receive documents

showing whether Plaintiff’s termination was voluntary or involuntary because such information

could potentially be relevant to the issue of mitigation of damages. Herbert Decl. Ex. 3 at 10:11-15;

19:5-7; Jan. 27, 2006 Order at 2:25-27. The Court specifically rejected Defendant’s argument that

information about her performance after she left Defendant’s employ was relevant. Thus, although

the facts regarding the reason for Plaintiff’s termination have changed somewhat, that change is not

material to the Court’s decision; both termination for cause and a layoff are involuntary separations

from employment. Cf. Sangster v. United Air Lines, 633 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that

under Title VII, back pay is not available when the evidence shows a willful loss of earnings,

specifically, “failure to remain in the labor market, refusal to accept substantially equivalent

employment, failure diligently to search for alternative work, or voluntarily quitting alternative

employment without good reason.”); Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th

Cir. 2000) (holding that the plaintiff failed to show that her “diminished income after that date [of

her termination] was not ‘voluntary’ and was thus an injury for which she would need to be ‘made

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 171 Filed 03/24/06 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

whole’ . . . ). The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s citation to out-of-circuit authority on this

issue. See Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 753 F.2d 1269, 1278-79 (4th Cir. 1985); EEOC v.

Fargo Assembly Co., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1163 (D. N.D. 2000). Defendant has made no showing

under Local Rule 7-9(b) as to why the Court should reconsider its ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 171 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 3