Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03360/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03360-16/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C. FAHEEM R. HARDEMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMTRAK/CALTRAIN RAILROAD,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-03360 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

By letter briefs, the parties bring before the Court a discovery dispute in this matter. Plaintiff

C. Faheem R. Hardeman seeks to compel defendant Amtrak Railroad to respond to a single document

request. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, an African-American male, worked at Amtrak as an engineer from July 1992 until his

termination on May 30, 2003. Plaintiff was terminated due to his involvement in a train derailment that

occurred while he and two other Amtrak employees were backing up a train. In August 2004 plaintiff

filed this action, alleging that his termination was the product of racial discrimination. One of plaintiff’s

primary claims is that he was disciplined differently than other Amtrak employees because of his race.

Near the close of discovery, plaintiff served defendant with his Request for Production No. 48,

which is the only subject of his current motion to compel. The document request concerned a document

apparently circulated in Amtrak’s Pacific Division on April 24, 2003. The document states that Amtrak

was “experiencing a high number of incidents that have resulted in both damage to switches and

derailments of equipment.” Seeking to investigate other incidents where employees have made errors,

Case 3:04-cv-03360-SI Document 111 Filed 07/19/06 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

and the disciplinary actions that have resulted therefrom, plaintiff requested:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which REFER, REFLECT or RELATE TO the document

entitled “Pacific Division, Caltrain Dated April 24, 2003” to All Concerned pertaining

to the “White Tag Test” . . . including but not limited to any reports or repair orders

which support the assertion in the document on page 1 that “[w]e are experiencing a high

number of incidents that have resulted in both damage to switches and derailment of

equipment” in the Pacific Division.

Pl. Br., Exh. A.

Defendant has refused to produce documents responsive to this request, arguing that the request

does not seek relevant information because the document concerns manual switches, while plaintiff’s

accident was caused by a power switch that was controlled remotely. Defendant also objects on grounds

of relevance because the document request names only “reports or repair orders,” and not disciplinary

records. Finally, defendant argues that responding to this request would be an undue burden, because

the document reflects an advisory that was issued on a national scale.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that this document request is relevant to plaintiff’s claim of

disparate treatment. Evidence that there were other incidents that resulted in damaged equipment or

train derailments could help support plaintiff’s assertion that he was disciplined more severely than

other employees who were involved in similar incidents. Documents describing other serious incidents

by Amtrak employees is highly relevant to this claim, regardless of whether they involved manual

switches or power switches. Even accepting defendant’s contention that the request is limited to

“reports or repair orders” – and the request is not so limited on its face – responsive documents would

still provide a context in which to determine whether the accident plaintiff was involved in was

particularly serious or a more routine matter.

Given the relevance of the material sought, the Court does not believe that responding to this

request will be unduly burdensome. Although the advisory may have been issued on a national scale,

the document request relates only to a document that was issued in the Pacific Division. Thus,

defendant may largely restrict its search for responsive documents to the Pacific Division.

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-03360-SI Document 111 Filed 07/19/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s

motion to compel. The parties’ letter briefs (Docket ## 73, 81) shall constitute the record for this

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03360-SI Document 111 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 3