Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTERS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 113, 114

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell filed these cases against Defendants 

Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. and Service West, Inc., alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 

and national origin. (See Dkt. No. 1.)1 On August 16, 2019, the parties filed joint discovery 

letters regarding: (1) Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production (“RFPs”), and 

(2) Defendants’ request that Plaintiff appear for an additional five hours of deposition testimony. 

(Discovery Letter re RFPs, Dkt. No. 113; Discovery Letter re Deposition, Dkt. No. 114.) Having 

reviewed the discovery letters, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ discovery requests, but DENIES 

Defendants’ request that they be permitted to brief sanctions at this time.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has 

the right to the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery need not 

be admissible to be discoverable. Id. the court, however, “must limit the frequency or extent of 

discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 

 

1 The cases were originally filed separately; on January 9, 2019, the cases were consolidated. 

(Dkt. No. 64.)

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 127 Filed 08/27/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, 

or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope 

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Furthermore, “[t]he court may, for 

good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by precluding discovery, by conditioning 

disclosure or discovery on specified terms, by preventing inquiry into certain matters, or by 

limiting the scope of discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c) confers 

broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree 

of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Discovery Letter re Requests for Production

Defendants seek: (1) individual responses to their two sets of RFPs, and (2) the production 

of documents that Plaintiff stated she had during her deposition, but has failed to provide. 

(Discovery Letter re RFPs at 2-3.) Defendants also raise concerns that Plaintiff has not produced 

all relevant and/or responsive documents. (Id. at 3.) For example, Defendants state that after 

Plaintiff repeatedly stated she had provided all documents to Defendants, she then produced an 

additional 59 pages on June 14, 2019. Additionally, in an August 7, 2019 filing, Plaintiff stated

she had other responsive documents that she had not yet produced. (See Dkt. No. 110 at 3 (stating 

that Plaintiff had a journal that she “will produce”).)

In response, Plaintiff asserts that she had provided individual responses to Defendants 

stating that she had no further documents to produce, and that she “can send duplicate as courtesy 

copies of the documents to defendants already received by plaintiff on two separate occasions half 

way into deposition 1 and 2.” (Discovery Letter re RFPs at 4.) Plaintiff also states that she has a 

recording but that she “don [sic] have the means to transfer this recording on a disc ay [sic] the 

moment.” (Id. (all caps omitted).)

The Court has repeatedly ordered Plaintiff to provide responses to the RFPs, as well as any 

responsive documents. (See Dec. 11, 2018 Ord. at 3, Dkt. No. 58; Dec. 19, 2018 Ord. at 2, Dkt. 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 127 Filed 08/27/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

No. 60; Mar. 6, 2019 Ord. at 3-4, Dkt. No. 71.) While Plaintiff states that she has provided 

individual responses that she has no further documents to produce, Plaintiff also admits that she 

does in fact have documents, including a recording, that she has not produced to Defendants. 

(Discovery Letter re RFPs at 4.) Plaintiff must produce all responsive documents. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to: (1) provide individual responses to each RFP, and (2) to produce 

all responsive documents and things within two weeks of the date of this order, including but not 

limited to the recording2and the journals she brought to her deposition. In her individual 

responses, Plaintiff cannot state she has no further responsive documents to produce if she does, 

in fact, have responsive documents. Failure to produce responsive documents as required by this 

order may result in the Court recommending evidentiary sanctions prohibiting Plaintiff from using 

any document not served on Defendants within two weeks of the date of this order.

B. Discovery Letter re Deposition 

Defendants request an additional five hours of deposition. (Discovery Letter re Deposition 

at 2.) While Defendants acknowledge that 10 hours and 20 minutes of deposition have been taken, 

Defendants explain that “[m]uch of the time in Plaintiff’s deposition has been spent in fruitless 

attempts to persuade Plaintiff of her obligation to produce documents and to provide information, 

or in long-winded diatribes by Plaintiff that have little to no bearing on the questions asked.” (Id.) 

Defendants also request that the Court require Plaintiff to produce any additional evidence she has 

before her deposition. (Id.)

Plaintiff does not deny that she was not responsive during her deposition. Instead, she 

states that she has already “endured 10 hours and 20 minutea [sic] off end being gruely [sic] 

interrogated by defendants, respectfully I ask when is enough enough . . . .” (Discovery Letter re 

Deposition at 3-4.) Thus, she opposes a third session of deposition.

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for five additional hours of deposition. Plaintiff 

must make herself available within 30 days of the date of this order, unless the parties mutually 

agree otherwise. The deposition will be held at the San Francisco office of Defendant Service 

 

2

If Plaintiff is unable to duplicate the recording on her own, and Defendants are willing, she can 

provide the recording to Defendants and allow them to copy the recording.

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 127 Filed 08/27/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

West’s counsel. Plaintiff must produce any responsive documents she possesses prior to the 

deposition. At the deposition, Plaintiff should not go on tangents, and must directly answer the 

questions posed to her. In so ordering, the Court emphasizes that Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit 

and is required to undergo deposition. The only way to avoid this obligation is to dismiss the 

lawsuit. 

C. Sanctions

Defendants request the opportunity to submit additional briefing regarding sanctions 

against Plaintiff. (Discovery Letter re RFPs at 4; Discovery Letter re Deposition at 3.) The Court 

denies the request at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, however, Defendants 

may move for sanctions, and the Court will seriously consider imposing both monetary and 

evidentiary sanctions, including but not limited to recommending terminating sanctions by the trial 

judge.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to:

(1) Provide individual responses to each RFP within two weeks of the date of this order;

(2) Produce all responsive documents and things within two weeks of the date of this 

order; and

(3) Appear for deposition for an additional five hours within 30 days of the date of this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 127 Filed 08/27/19 Page 4 of 4