Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00475/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00475-35/pdf.json

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

---

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

ELDRIDGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

AND COORDINATED CASES:

Miller, Leon v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00457 VC 

Palmer, Xavier v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00458 VC 

Jones Jr., Johnnie E. v. United Airlines, Inc. et 

al. 3:15-cv-00462 VC 

Crocker, Sal v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00468 VC 

Wilson, Darryl v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00472 VC 

Sherman, Leo v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00473 VC 

John, Richard v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00475 VC

Hartsfield, Terence v. United Airlines, Inc. et 

al. 3:15-cv-00477

Case No.12-cv-02730-VC (JSC)

ORDER FOLLOWING NOVEMBER 18, 

2016 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 217 Filed 11/22/16 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

The Court held a further discovery conference on November 18, 2016. The following 

confirms the matters discussed and ordered at the hearing.

A. Plaintiffs’ ESI production

 The parties informed the Court that they had worked out the primary/secondary email 

account issue. One issue remains regarding Plaintiff Darryl Wilson’s emails, but the parties are 

attempting to resolve that issue without Court intervention. 

B. Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Document Requests

The parties narrowed their disputes regarding Defendant’s production of documents to the 

following categories:

1. Scope/timeframe objection: Plaintiffs seek documents from 2008 to the present. 

Defendant objects to producing documents from before 2011 for the “settlement Plaintiffs”—those 

Plaintiffs who settled their claims with Defendant in 2011. Defendant has not asserted a burden 

objection to producing these documents and instead raises merits-based objections. Information 

from 2008 forward for all Plaintiffs is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case and must 

be produced. 

2. Complaints of race discrimination from black pilots from 2008 forward: Defendant 

objects on burden, but cannot quantify the burden. This evidence is relevant and, given the 

absence of any showing as to burden, proportional to the needs of the case. Complaints include 

lawsuits and legal filings with any administrative agencies.

3. Documents relating to the VAULT: Defendant has asserted attorney-client privilege 

over documents relating to investigation of the VAULT. The first step in resolving this dispute is 

production of a privilege log. Defendant shall produce the log at the time of production, that is, by 

November 30, 2016.

4. Applications for employment or special assignment by Plaintiffs: Defendant will 

produce each Plaintiff’s personnel file, but contends that it would be unduly burdensome to 

provide information regarding each position every Plaintiff applied for without regard to whether 

the application was identified in the complaint. Having heard the parties’ arguments, the Court 

orders that for the pre-2008 period, Defendant shall provide a report from the Taleo application 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 217 Filed 11/22/16 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

software of all the positions each Plaintiff applied for regardless of whether Plaintiffs specifically 

identified the application in the complaint. For 2008 forward, Defendant has agreed to produce 

the applications and related materials for those positions Plaintiffs identify in the complaint that 

they applied for, but the parties are unable to agree regarding production of application data for 

positions not identified in the complaint. For the post-2008 applications not alleged in the 

complaint, Defendant shall provide the requested documents identifying which positions were 

applied for and what happened with each application. The parties shall meet and confer regarding 

any dispute over additional documents and provide a joint letter brief to the Court if necessary by 

December 16, 2016. 

5. Successful applicant information: Plaintiffs seek the personnel file, applications, and 

interview documents for applicants who were awarded positions sought by the Plaintiffs during 

the relevant time period. Defendant has raised objections to producing the personnel files. 

Subject to the protective order, Defendant shall produce documents from the successful 

applicant’s personnel file that relate to the successful applicant’s qualifications including any 

disciplinary information or complaints regarding employee performance or conduct. 

6. Special assignments: Plaintiffs seek documents regarding all special assignments in the 

domiciles the Plaintiffs worked from 2008 forward. Defendant objects on relevance, feasibility,

and burden grounds. This evidence is relevant. The parties shall meet and confer regarding this 

request on or before November 21, 2016 in light of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement that he has 

suggestions for how this information might be obtained through the scheduling software.

7. Job qualifications and duties: Defendant will provide the description of duties and 

qualifications for all positions Plaintiffs applied for as identified in the complaint.

8. Salary and benefits for successful applicants: The parties agree as to the documents

to be produced regarding the salary and benefits of successful applicants.

9. Email search terms: Defendant has generated a list of search terms. The parties will 

meet and confer regarding these search terms on or before November 21, 2016. 

10. Document Request Nos. 47 & 51: The parties will meet and confer to narrow these 

requests on or before November 21, 2016. 

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 217 Filed 11/22/16 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

***

As previously ordered, the Court will have a further telephonic discovery conference with 

the parties on November 28, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 217 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 4