Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01310-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

FADI SABA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01310-WHO 

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 91

Plaintiff Fadi Saba moves for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate 

Judge Donna M. Ryu, which required him to respond to interrogatories by disclosing information 

contained in privileged tax filings. Dkt. No. 91. 

I have recognized the settled principle that “[t]he tax privilege is not absolute, and it is 

waived or inapplicable in situations where: (1) there is an intentional relinquishment, (2) the 

gravamen of the lawsuit is so inconsistent with the continued assertion of the taxpayer's privilege 

as to compel the conclusion that the privilege has in fact been waived, or (3) a public policy 

greater than that of confidentiality of tax returns is involved.” Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., 

Inc., No. 13-CV-00057-WHO, 2013 WL 6057043, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (internal 

quotations omitted). 

As discussed in today’s Order on Unisys’s Motion to Seal, this information is relevant 

because it demonstrates that Saba may have worked for other, potentially competing, employers 

while he worked at Unisys. In its joint discovery brief, Unisys also pointed to the documents’ 

bearing on Saba’s damage claims, which “rest on his ability to show financial losses proximately 

caused by Unisys.” Dkt. No. 91, Ex. 2 at 2. It also pointed to “the question of his operation of 

another business during his employment.” Id. 

I find that the amounts earned by Saba from these other sources will ultimately be relevant 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

to both damages and to Saba’s affirmative defenses. Given the subject matter of this lawsuit and 

the materiality of the information, Saba waived his privilege in the amounts that he earned from 

other sources. Accordingly, Saba’s motion for relief from Judge Ryu’s order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01310-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 2