Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07314/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07314-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-07314-CRB (LB)

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 Californi

a

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

CRYSTAL SCRIPPS MCKELLAR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MITHRIL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-07314-CRB (LB) 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

Re: ECF No. 54 

The trial judge referred this case to the undersigned to resolve all discovery disputes.1

 The 

parties dispute whether the plaintiff should have depositions and written discovery to supplement 

her evidentiary submissions for two pending motions that are fully briefed and set for a hearing 

before the trial judge on March 20, 2020: the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and the 

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin earlier-filed actions in Texas (filed on 

October 2, 2019) and Delaware (filed on October 18, 2019).2

 In the other actions, the defendants 

(Mithril Capital in Texas and Mithril Feeder in Delaware) apparently claimed that the plaintiff — 

by reporting the defendants’ alleged securities fraud to the SEC, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the 

1

 Order of Referral – ECF No. 41. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2

 Motions – ECF Nos. 21 & 23; Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 54 at 1–2. 

Case 3:19-cv-07314-CRB Document 60 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 4
ORDER – No. 19-cv-07314-CRB (LB) 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 Californi

a

Northern District of California, and the FBI — violated restrictive covenants in her employment 

contracts.3 The plaintiff, who is a citizen of California, filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of 

California on November 7, 2019, charging (among other claims) Dodd-Frank Whistleblower 

Retaliation, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h).4 Venue matters: California Labor Code § 925 

prohibits non-California choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions in certain employment 

contracts and mandates a California venue for litigations and arbitrations.5 

The court held a hearing on February 27, 2020, denies the extensive discovery, and sets forth a 

process to identify targeted, non-burdensome document discovery about the plaintiff’s 

employment status after February 11, 2020.6

The main relevance of the discovery is the plaintiff’s employment status from February 11, 

2019 to July 17, 2019.7 She contends that discovery is necessary (in part) because the defendants 

say (in their supporting declarations to the motions) that she was not employed by Mithril Capital 

from February 11, 2019 and July 17, 2019, and she maintains that she was.8 She wants two 

depositions and substantive responses to requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for 

production (“RFPs”).9 The defendants oppose any discovery but said that at most, it should be 

narrower than the extensive proposed discovery and limited to “written discovery related to [the 

plaintiff’s] status after February 11, 2019.”10

On this record, the court does not allow the extensive discovery that the plaintiff wants. 

First, the court thinks that the parties’ disputes of fact are fairly illuminated by the existing 

filings. The plaintiff, for example, has personal knowledge of what she did. The defendants 

3

 Joint Letter Br.– ECF No. 54 at 1. 

4

 Compl. – ECF No. 1; First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) – ECF No. 40. 

5

 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 54 at 1. 

6

 Minute Entry – ECF No. 58. 

7

 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 54 at 2. 

8 Id.

9 Id. at 1. 

10 Id. at 5. 

Case 3:19-cv-07314-CRB Document 60 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 4
ORDER – No. 19-cv-07314-CRB (LB) 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 Californi

a

submitted competing declarations. The court understands that the plaintiff wants the discovery to 

prove the defendants’ declarations wrong by contrasting their declarations to the actual 

documents. But the record for the motions illuminates the plaintiff’s points sufficiently, including 

the context of the defendants’ filing lawsuits in Texas and Delaware, thereby forcing a Californiabased employee (of a firm headquartered in San Francisco from June 2012 to February 2019) to 

defend lawsuits in remote forums.11 

Second, the defendants point out that there is no good cause for expedited discovery about the 

merits of her case because there has been no Rule 26(f) discovery conference and thus no 

discovery plan.12 The plaintiff characterizes the parties’ January 24, 2020 call as a Rule 26(f) 

conference and served her discovery requests the next business day.13 But the telephone call was 

not a Rule 26(f) conference: it was a call to discuss the defendants’ proposal to continue the casemanagement conference (since continued by the trial judge) and related deadlines until after the 

trial court decided the arbitration motion.14 The parties never discussed discovery.15 It is hard to 

see how — for motions fully briefed on February 7, 2020, previously set for a hearing on February 

28, 2020, and moved by the trial judge to March 20, 2020 — there is good cause for voluminous 

discovery on the time frame that the plaintiff proposes in a letter brief filed on February 19, 2020, 

a month after the parties filed their respective motions on January 17, 2020. 

Third, even if there were utility to the discovery and good cause for allowing it, the broad 

scope of the discovery will derail the motions schedule. The interrogatories ask for detailed 

descriptions (such as all facts supporting the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff was an 

independent contractor after February 11, 2019).16 The 34 requests for production (“RFPs”) ask 

11 Mot. for Prelim. Inj. – ECF No. 21 at 2 (citing McKellar Decl. – ECF No. 21-1 at 4 (¶¶ 26–27), 22–

23). 

12 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 54 at 4. 

13 Id. at 2, 4. 

14 Id. at 4. 

15 Id. 

16 Joint Ex. – ECF No. 54-1 at 1–2. 

Case 3:19-cv-07314-CRB Document 60 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 4
ORDER – No. 19-cv-07314-CRB (LB) 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 Californi

a

for extensive productions (and are in the nature of “all documents and communications” regarding 

every conceivable relevant issue relating to the employment and independent-contractor 

relationships).17 This is merits discovery. A related point is that the requests for admissions are not 

obviously helpful given the parties’ different positions on the parties’ relationship between 

February 11, 2019 to July 17, 2019.18

Third, given the choice-of-forum issue, limited written discovery on a short time frame — 

such as the defendants’ proposal for limited written discovery relating to the plaintiff’s 

employment status after February 11, 2019 — might be fruitful and not burdensome. But the 

plaintiff proposes no workable compromise, and the extensive requests do not allow the court to 

craft one.19 For example, the plaintiff knows what she did. Perhaps by reference to her declarations 

regarding the pending motions, she can describe specific documents relating to specific work at a 

specific time. (E.g., I worked with X during the week of Y on issue Z, and this work is captured in 

documents A, B, and C.) At the hearing, the court also asked the defendants to evaluate whether 

there is document-based discovery that shows what the plaintiff did after February 11, 2019 and 

whether there is a non-burdensome way to produce it. The defendants agreed that they would. 

By suggesting the approach, the court does not hold that the discovery is necessary to deciding 

the motions. To the contrary, the parties’ declarations appear sufficient. That said, if nonburdensome, targeted document discovery will illuminate the scope of the plaintiff’s employment 

after February 11, 2020, the court will allow it if the plaintiff proposes reasonable, targeted 

discovery. On this record, she has not. The court denies the request without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 29, 2020 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

17 Id. at 2–4. 

18 Id. at 1. 

19 The plaintiff’s proposal on February 19, 2020 to allow written discovery by March 4, 2020 and 

schedule depositions on March 13, 2020 is not a reasonable compromise, give the scope of the 

discovery and the hearing date for the motions of March 20, 2020. Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 54 at 3. 

Case 3:19-cv-07314-CRB Document 60 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 4