Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-14/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

1

Plaintiff brought this matter before the Court by letter brief dated January 12, 2006 (Docket No.

74). Defendant responded on January 20, 2006 (Docket No. 76), and plaintiff replied on January 25,

2006 (Docket No. 77).

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute in this matter.1 Plaintiff, Karen Humphreys, seeks

to compel third party Korn/Ferry International (“Korn/Ferry”) to produce unredacted documents in

response to a subpoena. Having considered the arguments presented, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s

motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Karen Humphreys is the former Assistant Athletic Director for Student Services at the

University of California, Berkeley (“UC Berkeley”). After she was laid off in March 2004, Humphreys

brought suit against the University of California, alleging that when she was laid off the University had

retained male employees who were less qualified and who had less seniority. One of the allegations in

Humphreys’s lawsuit involves a new athletic director UC Berkeley hired in 2001. Humphreys alleges

that this new athletic director replaced the existing “Executive Team” in UC Berkeley’s athletic

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 82 Filed 02/13/06 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

One of the primary cases Korn/Ferry cites, Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548,

551 (E.D. Cal. 1990), has been explicitly disavowed by the Eastern District of California. As that court

stated in Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D. 653, 654 (E.D. Cal. 1997):

Federal law governs the parties’ dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 501. Despite defendant's

repeated assertions to the contrary, the law of California, the forum state, does not

inform federal privilege law. See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 135

L. Ed.2d 337 (1996) (finding a federal psychologist-patient privilege without mention

of the law of the forum state vis-a-vis the law of the whole 50 states). In this respect,

Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548 (E.D. Cal.1990), Martinez v. City

of Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677 (E.D. Cal.1990), and Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145

F.R.D. 683 (E.D. Cal.1993), cited by defendant, have been overruled.

2

department without considering qualified women.

Through discovery, Humphreys learned that Korn/Ferry had been hired to fill positions on the

Executive Team. Seeking to discover the candidates that were considered for these positions,

Humphreys subpoenaed documents from Korn/Ferry related to recruiting for four positions. Korn/Ferry

produced approximately 250 pages of documents, all of which had the identifying information for the

candidates redacted. Although Humphreys requested that the redactions be removed, Korn/Ferry

refused, stating that it would not disturb the confidentiality of the candidates without a court order.

Based on this statement, Humphreys filed the instant motion to compel.

DISCUSSION

Korn/Ferry argues that the Court should deny plaintiff’s motion because the information plaintiff

seeks is protected by California law.2

 In this case, however, federal law determines the evidentiary

privileges that apply. Fed. R. Evid. 501. And there is no federal analog to the California privacy rights

that Korn/Ferry seeks to invoke.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, however, allows a court to limit discovery where “the

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

“Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be

implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.” Seattle Times Co.

v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S. Ct. 2199 (1984).

Here, however, the information sought is highly relevant to plaintiff’s claims. The identities of

the candidates are necessary for plaintiff to establish their qualifications, information that is vital for her

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 82 Filed 02/13/06 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

According to Korn/Ferry, the documents at issue have been redacted to remove three classes

of information: 1) identifying information of job candidates; 2) private information of the candidates,

such as social security numbers, addresses and telephone numbers; 3) and identifying information of

individuals who provided references. Plaintiff has stated that the only information she currently seeks

is the identifying information of the candidates. Thus, Korn/Ferry may leave continue to redact the

other two categories of information.

3

claim that she was discriminated against, in part, because qualified women were denied consideration

for high level positions in UC Berkeley’s athletic department. Further, while the candidates listed on

the Korn/Ferry documents may have some privacy interest in preventing their identities from being

disclosed to the public, the Court does not find that interest to be particularly compelling. Thus, the

Court finds that the relevance of the discovery outweighs any burden it might cause and ORDERS

Korn/Ferry to produce the documents at issue with the identities of the candidates unredacted.3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 74).

Korn/Ferry shall produce the documents at issue without redacting the identifies of the candidates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 82 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 3