Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00405/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00405-1/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

SHAUNE PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLE COMPUTER INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-00405 PJH (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL UNREDACTED

DISCOVERY AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DEPOSITION OF DAVID HULL

Plaintiff Shaune Patterson, a former Human Resources Compensation Consultant for

Defendant Apple, filed this employment discrimination action against Defendant and two of her

former supervisors. Plaintiff has filed two discovery motions: (1) Motion to Compel Production of

an Unredacted Discovery; and (2) Motion to Compel the Deposition of David Hull. The Court

granted Plaintiff’s request to hear these matters on shortened time. Although Plaintiff filed her reply

three days late, the Court nonetheless considered it. Because these matters are appropriate for

decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the June 28, 2005 hearing.

Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Discovery

At issue is a five-page typed summary of notes by Sheri Parker, Apple’s Employee Relations

Director (Bates-stamped numbers 00181-00185). Portions of that document are redacted based on

the attorney-client privilege.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant improperly redacted Ms. Parker’s notes. Plaintiff believes

that a comparison of a series of unredacted handwritten notes (Bates-stamped numbers 00140-

00144) and Ms. Parker’s redacted typed notes shows that the phrase, “she’s an obese sized black

lesbian” was deleted from the typed notes even though it appears in the handwritten notes, and that

Case 4:04-cv-00405-PJH Document 115 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 5
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

this deletion demonstrates that Defendant’s redactions were improper. This argument is not

persuasive. The handwritten notes and the typed notes contain similar information, but one does not

appear to be the transcription of the other. It is not surprising that the documents contain similar

information because Ms. Parker states her typed summary contains her notes from a security

assessment meeting attended by Steve Burmeister and David Hull (see Parker Decl. ¶ 6), and the

handwritten notes appear to be Mr. Hull’s notes from that security assessment. 

Further, Defendant has provided evidence to substantiate its assertion of the attorney-client

privilege. Dan Walker, Apple’s Chief Talent Officer, sent Parker a copy of an email he had received

from Plaintiff and asked Ms. Parker to investigate the circumstances of the email. See Parker Decl.

¶ 3. Plaintiff’s email discussed Plaintiff’s salary, grade level and responsibilities, and her belief that

she had been denied a promotion and a raise. See id.; Perry Decl. Exh. O. The email also enclosed

salary information, promotion history and performance information of her colleagues and her direct

supervisor, Mr. Burmeister. See id. The email also said that Plaintiff disclosed this information to

people outside Apple. See id. After reading Plaintiff’s email, Ms. Parker believed that Plaintiff

improperly accessed confidential information and used it for purposes unrelated to her work duties. 

See Parker Decl. ¶ 3. 

Ms. Parker commenced an investigation into the Plaintiff’s use of confidential salary

information in her email. See id. ¶ 4. After gathering information from Mr. Burmeister, Ms. Parker

was concerned that Defendant’s confidential information was at risk, so she contacted in-house and

outside counsel to figure out what to do to protect that information. See id. ¶¶ 4, 5. The redacted

portions of the typed notes at issue reflect Ms. Parker’s communications with counsel during her

investigation. See id. ¶ 6. 

Accordingly, there is no basis for compelling production of an unredacted copy of Ms.

Parker’s notes, nor is there a basis for an in camera review of those notes. Defendant has made a

showing that the redacted information is protected by the attorney-client privilege and Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate a reasonable ground to expect that an in camera inspection would reveal any

different information. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Discovery is denied. 

//

Case 4:04-cv-00405-PJH Document 115 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 5
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 In her late-filed reply, Plaintiff contends that the parties stipulated to a one-day extension

of the discovery cutoff to accommodate Mr. Burmeister’s continued deposition and that therefore,

Plaintiff contacted defense counsel regarding Mr. Hull’s deposition within ten days of the discovery

cutoff. For purposes of this order, it makes no difference whether the parties agreed to a one-day

extension of discovery.

3

Motion to Compel Deposition of David Hull

David Hull is a former Apple Security Manager. Defendant included Mr. Hull in its initial

disclosures, stating that: “with the exception of Plaintiff, any current or former employees of

Defendant Apple Computer, Inc. should not be contacted individually without the prior consent of

defense counsel.” Defendant did not later supplement its initial disclosures to reflect Mr. Hull’s

departure from Apple. 

Mr. Hull’s importance to this case became apparent as early as October 2004 during Mr.

Burmeister’s deposition and Mr. Hull’s likely authorship of the notes was stated in December 2004. 

Mr. Burmeister testified that he was not the author of the handwritten notes and could not

authenticate them. He testified about the security assessment meeting which the notes appear to

memorialize and stated that only Mr. Burmeister, Ms. Parker and Mr. Hull were present at that

meeting. Later, on December 29, 2004, Ms. Parker filed a declaration in connection with

Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. The declaration stated that she

was not the author of the handwritten notes, that she believed they were written by Mr. Hull and that

Mr. Hull was no longer employed by Apple. During Ms. Parker’s February 24, 2005 deposition, she

testified about the security assessment meeting and that only Ms. Parker, Mr. Burmeister and Mr.

Hull were present. 

Despite knowing since at least December 2004 that Mr. Hull likely authored the

handwritten notes, Plaintiff did not contact defense counsel about deposing Mr. Hull until May 23,

2005, nine days before the close of discovery.1

 At that time, defense counsel stated that Mr. Hull

was no longer employed by Defendant and so defense counsel could not produce him for deposition,

and that nine days was not reasonable notice for the deposition. See Perry Decl. ¶ 8. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a deposition notice to defense counsel after business hours on that day

purporting to notice Mr. Hull’s deposition for June 1. See id. On May 24, 2005, Defendant’s

counsel served objections to the deposition notice stating that counsel did not represent Mr. Hull,

Case 4:04-cv-00405-PJH Document 115 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 5
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 Plaintiff accuses defense counsel of assisting Mr. Hull in evading service of the

deposition notice. Plaintiff has provided no support for this inflammatory contention. 

4

who no longer worked for Defendant, and that there was insufficient notice. See id. ¶ 9. As

requested by Plaintiff, Defendant provided Mr. Hull’s last known address. See id. ¶ 10. 

Plaintiff’s primary argument is that Defendant was under an obligation to supplement its

initial disclosures to reflect that Mr. Hull was no longer employed by Defendant and because

Defendant failed to do so, the Court should compel Mr. Hull’s deposition. Although Defendant

should have supplemented its disclosures, that failure is harmless because Plaintiff had notice as

early as December 2004 through Ms. Parker’s declaration that Mr. Hull was no longer employed by

Defendant. Plaintiff has provided no reason why she waited until the eleventh hour to contact

defense counsel to arrange Mr. Hull’s deposition. Further, because there is no evidence that Plaintiff

properly served Mr. Hull with a deposition subpoena, there is no basis for a court order compelling

his deposition.2

 Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s caution not to contact former or current employees

without consent of defense counsel amounted to a representation that defense counsel served as the

attorney for all such employees, on which Plaintiff relied in serving a notice rather than a subpoena. 

Plaintiff’s interpretation was not reasonable. Counsel for a corporate defendant do not usually

represent all employees, current and former, including those who parted on less than fond terms. 

The purpose was to preclude the possibility of improper ex parte contact. Even if the caution were

arguably ambiguous, Plaintiff should have clarified the question much earlier. Finally, Judge

Hamilton has stated that because of Plaintiff’s conduct during discovery, pretrial dates would not be

continued to allow additional time for discovery. See Judge Hamilton’s Jan. 11, 2005 Order at 2:27-

3:1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel David Hull’s Deposition is denied. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:04-cv-00405-PJH Document 115 Filed 06/28/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Sanctions

Both parties seek sanctions. Sanctions are denied because the parties failed to comply with

Local Rule 37-3 requiring a separate sanctions motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00405-PJH Document 115 Filed 06/28/05 Page 5 of 5