Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01503/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01503-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 1

 The parties’ letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 55 and 58.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAYNA G. KALIMA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-1503 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 

DISCUSSION

1. Plaintiff’s document requests 11 and 12

Plaintiff’s document request number 11 seeks any and all communications between plaintiff and

defendant Dolan, and request number 12 seeks “any evidence of an alleged consensual affair” between

the parties. Defendant states that it has fully responded to these document requests by producing e-mails

between plaintiff and defendant, and that request number 12 is vague. 

Plaintiff’s letter brief states that plaintiff clarified request number 12 in a letter dated April 6,

2007 as follows: any e-mail, letters, notes, memoranda, voice-mail recordings, recorded conversations

(either telephonically or via instant messenger), photographs, videos, web logs, journals, or any other

documented communication regarding the relationship between plaintiff and defendant Dolan. The

Court finds that, as clarified, request number 12 is not vague, and that it seeks relevant evidence.

Case 3:06-cv-01503-SI Document 60 Filed 05/21/07 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

Defendant is ordered to respond to document request number 12 as clarified. 

2. Plaintiff’s document request 13

Plaintiff’s document request number 13 seeks “any and all diaries and/or calendars kept by you

from January 1, 1999 to June 1, 2005.” Defendant has refused to produce these documents on privacy

grounds, although defendant’s letter brief states that he will produce any excerpts that relate to plaintiff.

The Court agrees that defendant’s diaries and calendars are probative of the nature of the relationship

between the parties, and accordingly orders defendant to produce only those portions of the diaries and

calendars that refer or relate to plaintiff. The Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff’s asserted need

to discover “defendant’s habitual activities” is insufficient to overcome defendant’s privacy interest in

the balance of his diaries and calendars. 

3. Plaintiff’s document requests 15-21

These document requests seek communications between defendant Dolan and third parties

regarding allegations of sexual, racial or disability-based discrimination, misconduct or harassment

against Dolan. Defendant has agreed to provide communications referring to plaintiff’s claims against

him, but refuses to provide documents relating allegations made against him by anyone other than

plaintiff.

The Court finds that if such other communications exist, they are discoverable. See Heyne v.

Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1479-80 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding a defendant’s discriminatory attitude in general

may be relevant to proving discrimination against the plaintiff). The Court makes no finding on the

admissibility of any such communications.

4. Plaintiff’s document requests relating to financial records

Plaintiff has requested a wide range of financial records on the ground that they are relevant to

plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, property appraisals, any and all documents

reflecting defendant’s monthly expenditures (including everything from medical payments to children’s

educational payments), monthly earnings statements, and documents reflecting ownership of land,

Case 3:06-cv-01503-SI Document 60 Filed 05/21/07 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

investments, vehicles etc. 

Defendant objects that financial information is privileged under the California Constitution.

However, federal law on privilege, and not state, applies to the instant case. See Religious Tech. Ctr.

v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that federal privilege law applies in

a case involving both federal and pendent state claims). Defendant also suggests that plaintiff should

make a prima facie showing before obtaining any financial condition discovery. While some federal

courts have required such a showing, the majority have not. See CEH, Inc. v. FV Seafarer, 153 F.R.D.

491, 497-98 (D.R.I. 1994) (collecting cases). This Court also concludes that a prima facie showing is

not required in order to obtain discovery on a defendant’s financial condition.

However, the Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff’s discovery requests, as currently

framed, are vastly overbroad. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding production of

documents that will reflect defendant’s current net worth. The Court also concludes that the privacy of

defendant’s financial records can be maintained through a protective order limiting disclosure to counsel

only and requiring destruction of all information (including copies) at the end of litigation.

CONCLUSION

Defendant shall produce any additional responsive documents in connection with document

requests 11-13, and 15-21 no later than June 1, 2007. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the

production of financial documents, and a protective order, no later than May 25, 2007, and defendant

shall produce the agreed-upon financial documents subject to the protective order no later than June

1, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01503-SI Document 60 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 3