Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

SAMUEL B JOHNSON III,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-07-05756 JCS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff has filed a letter dated July 10, 2008 [Docket No. 76], seeking to compel the

production of certain documents that he requested from the Defendants, Chevron Corporation and

Chevron Environmental Management Company, (“Defendants”). Plaintiff has also filed a letter

dated July 23, 2008 [Docket No. 80], in which he seeks to compel the production of certain

documents that he purportedly subpoenaed from nonparty PG & E. The Court treats these two

letters as a motion to compel.

The motion to compel is DENIED. The July 10, 2008 letter does not specify the particular

document requests that are at issue. To the extent that it does identify the documents sought, it

refers only to the “personnel files of the previously dismissed defendants as well as other employees

of the Chevron defendants.” Plaintiff has set forth no basis that would justify the production of the

entirety of these individuals’ personnel files. While it is possible that there are particular documents

within those files that Plaintiff might justifiably seek, he has not done so and has not set forth such a

request in the July 10, 2008 letter.

The July 23, 2008 letter suffers from the same defects. It does not adequately identify the

specific category of documents subpoenaed from PG & E. In addition, to the extent that it identifies

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 88 Filed 07/29/08 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

those documents generally as Ms. Solger’s personnel file, the request is overbroad – Plaintiff has set

forth no reasons that might justify the production of the entirety of that file. In addition, Plaintiff

first served notice of this subpoena by facsimile without written agreement of opposing counsel, as

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While Plaintiff later served notice by mail, the

Court notes for future reference that facsimile notice not completed in compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure will not be acceptable to the Court.

Defendants served a letter dated July 28, 2008, in opposition to the July 23, 2008 letter, and

also seeking to quash a subpoena on PG&E. That motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated

above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2008 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 88 Filed 07/29/08 Page 2 of 2