Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00677/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00677-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMOND TADEFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-0677 EMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 48)

The Court has construed a filing submitted by Plaintiff Edmond Tadefa (pro se) as a motion

to compel. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and

DENIES in part the motion to compel.

As a preliminary matter, the Court acknowledges Defendant FedEx Office and Print

Services, Inc.’s (“FedEx”) argument that the motion should be denied because Mr. Tadefa failed to

meet and confer in good faith. While there may have been no meet and confer and/or an inadequate

one, the Court shall – for this occasion only – overlook any such problem in order to keep this case

on track for a summary judgment hearing on August 27, 2015. 

As to the merits of the motion, the Court largely denies the motion because, for the most part,

there is no indication that FedEx has withheld any relevant documents. Moreover, while there are

some document requests where FedEx did not state, in response, that it would produce documents,

there is, for the most part, a sound basis for that position. Most notably, many of the so-called

Case 3:14-cv-00677-EMC Document 55 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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

document requests are effectively interrogatories, either in whole or in part (e.g., Document

Requests Nos. 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15). See McCoy Decl., Ex. B (responses to document requests).

There is one document request, however, where the Court shall order FedEx to produce

documents, at least in part. Document No. 9 asks FedEx to “[p]roduce all documents pertaining to

(within five years) lawsuits against defendants from employees or customers. List names and

addresses of each person who filed suits.” The Court agrees with FedEx that this document request

is overbroad and is in part an interrogatory. However, the document request can be narrowed so that

relevant information, if it exists, may be produced to Mr. Tadefa. Accordingly, the Court orders

FedEx to produce the following: Where a customer of the FedEx center where Mr. Tadefa was

excluded filed a lawsuit against FedEx complaining of discrimination on the basis of race/national

origin, age, or disability at that FedEx center, (1) any court complaint and (2) any court documents

reflecting the disposition of that complaint. The time period shall be from November 8, 2010, and

on. FedEx must produce documents by July 31, 2015, so that Mr. Tadefa has sufficient time to

review the documents (if any) and incorporate them into his opposition to FedEx’s summary

judgment motion. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 48.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00677-EMC Document 55 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2