Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-38/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

KAREN MOE HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-04-03808 SI (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT OF THE

COURT’S JUNE 15, 2006 ORDER

REGARDING SAWYERS

INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTS

On June 15, 2006, the Court issued an order stating, inter alia, that:

On or before June 20, 2006, Defendants shall make available to Plaintiff for

inspection and copying all Sawyers investigation documents to Plaintiff.

Production is subject to the existing protective order, which does not expire for

purposes of this discovery only until further Order of this Court. No later than

June 20, 2006, Defendants shall also produce the Sawyers privilege log to

Plaintiff. 

June 15, 2006 Order at 2:2-6. On August 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking an order

permitting her to subpoena the law firm of Siegel & Yee, which represented Mr. Sawyers in his

lawsuit against the University, seeking production of all documents produced in the Sawyers

litigation and all available transcripts of depositions taken. This motion has been fully briefed. 

Because the matter was appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the

September 19, 2006 hearing. 

Defendants argue that they have complied with the Court’s Order by producing all

documents from the Sawyers investigation file which were produced in the Sawyers matter. The

Court’s Order, however, was not so limited, and instead required production of all Sawyers

investigation documents. Moreover, the Court has found that Defendants waived any privilege as to

the Sawyers investigation documents. See Sept. 11, 2006 Order (docket number 510). 

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 526 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, Defendants shall produce those documents. In addition, if Defendants have not

already produced all documents regarding meetings with decision-makers over results of the

Sawyers investigation, they must do so. If there are no additional documents, Defendants shall

provide a declaration from the person or persons most knowledgeable regarding the diligent search

done for responsive documents and attesting that they have produced all documents relating to the

Sawyers investigation whether or not those documents were produced in the Sawyers case. 

Defendants shall also specifically identify any categories of documents from the Sawyers case that

they are not producing, such as worker’s compensation documents, that they claim are irrelevant or

make up the discrepancy in Bates-stamp numbers identified by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s request for permission to subpoena the law firm that represented Mr. Sawyers is

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 526 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2