Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03272/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03272-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARLENE THOMPSON and

DONNA JEREZ,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

GENENTECH, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-03272 MJJ MEJ

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE

JOB DUTY AND SALARY

INFORMATION

On May 25, 2005, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter in which Plaintiffs sought to compel

discovery of comparative statistical data. On August 1, 2005, the Court ordered Defendant to provide

statistical data, including salary information, for all facility managers at the "S3" and "S4" levels. On

September 15, 2005, the parties filed a letter seeking resolution of a related discovery dispute involving job

duty and salary information. Plaintiffs seek salary information and job descriptions of managers at the same

level as Plaintiffs, namely S3 and S4 managers, who did not have academic credentials above those of

Plaintiffs and who were employed by Genentech at the same time as Plaintiffs. 

In response, Defendant asks that the Court limit the scope of discovery to job duties of S3 and S4

managers in the “Maintenance Service Management or Corporate Security Job Families for the requested

period, to the extent that such information can be located” and to job duties of S3 and S4 managers who

reported to the same managers as Plaintiffs between January 1, 2000 and October 2003. In support of

Case 3:04-cv-03272-MJJ Document 98 Filed 10/14/05 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

these objections, Defendant argues that salary data for S3 and S4 employees is irrelevant because S3 and

S4 designations correspond to levels of responsibility, not salary. Defendant also argues that gathering job

descriptions for the many S3 and S4 employees, if possible, would take hundreds of hours.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that discovery regarding salary information

and job descriptions for managers at the S3 and S4 levels is appropriate. Although Defendant argues that

the requested information is irrelevant, the information is at least calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, Defendant may choose to comply with this

Order by designating one or more persons to testify on its behalf pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 30(b)(6). Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Within 30 days from the date of this Order, Defendant shall provide job descriptions and

salary information for all managers at the S3 and S4 levels from January 1, 2000 to

September 1, 2004.

2. Defendant may satisfy the requirements of this order via document production or

designating one or more persons to testify pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03272-MJJ Document 98 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2