Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03153/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03153-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 A party may obtain discovery as to “any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts broadly construe

the scope of permissible discovery. See, e.g., In re Advanced

Interventional Systems Securities Litigation, 1993 WL 331006,

at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 1993) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc.

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUANITA WYNNE, on behalf of

themselves and classes of

those similarly situated,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS’S

SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC.,

et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-3153 CW (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

STATISTICAL DATA

Before the court is plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Compel

Production of Statistical Data.1

 In opposing discovery,

defendants make two principal arguments:

1. That discovery should be limited to the Berkeley

restaurant which is the subject of the complaints by the two

named plaintiffs; and

Case 4:06-cv-03153-CW Document 42 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 5
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 I have discounted defendants arguments that the

propounded discovery would be burdensome because the argument

is not supported by any declaration establishing burden. In

any event I believe the limitations I impose will mitigate any

burden, for the time being, that may exist.

2

2. That plaintiffs should instead, or at least first,

depose a broad range of individuals tendered by defendants who

presumably will satisfy plaintiffs that the challenged hiring

practices are limited to the Berkeley restaurant because

defendants restaurants operate on a decentralized basis. 

As to defendants’ first argument, this court cannot say

as a matter of law that statistical evidence of discrimination

at stores other than Berkeley, is not relevant to the issue of

whether a class should be certified that would extend to

stores other than Berkeley.2

 The decision whether to permit

discovery pre-class certification is within the sound

discretion of the court. Barnhart v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,

1992 WL 443561, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 1992). Statistical

evidence in particular is well-accepted evidence of class wide

discrimination, and may go to the commonality prerequisite. 

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137, 154 (N.D. Cal.

2004) (appeal pending); see also Barefield v. Chevron U.S.A.,

Inc., 1987 WL 65054, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 1987). Indeed,

as the Ninth Circuit has explained, “‘the often-cited

aphorism, ‘statistics often tell much and Courts listen,’ has

particular application in Title VII cases.’” Blake v. City of

Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 1375 n.4 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting

United States v. Ironworkers Local 86, 443 F.2d 544, 551 (9th

Cir. 1971)). 

In their opposition, defendants repeatedly argue that

Case 4:06-cv-03153-CW Document 42 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

plaintiffs have no evidence of discrimination at any

restaurant other than at Berkeley. In reply, plaintiffs have

submitted declarations of nine (9) individuals who claim to

have suffered or witnessed various types of discrimination in

eleven (11) different restaurants operated by defendants in

various states. 

As to the second argument, defendants have cited no

authority, and the court is aware of none, for the proposition

that defendants can dictate the means of discovery that the

plaintiffs must use. That proposition appears inconsistent

with Rule 26(d). I agree with the argument that the

plaintiffs advanced during the telephonic hearing some weeks

ago that it would not be efficient to require them first to

depose defendants’ management personnel since they might have

to be re-deposed once the statistical discovery was produced. 

While the defendants’ witnesses might be willing to undergo

multiple depositions, I see no reason to force plaintiffs to

do so.

Finally, some of defendants’ objections to the original

discovery requested are well taken. While plaintiffs assert

that they are moving to compel production of only statistical

data, plaintiffs have not rewritten their discovery requests. 

In an effort to avoid confusion, I will rule on each request

specifically and generally limit plaintiffs’ requests to

certain electronically stored information and government

mandated compliance reports and other similar documents. 

I have also denied those requests which are irrelevant to

plaintiffs’ current need for statistical data.

Case 4:06-cv-03153-CW Document 42 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Based on the foregoing, I HEREBY ORDER the following:

(1) Plaintiffs’ requests for production nos. 6 and 7 are

GRANTED to the extent that they request electronically stored

data showing the race, date of application, date of hire, job

title(s), salary/wage rates, gross pay, bonuses, fulltime/part-time status, hours, shifts, restaurant location, and

termination codes for all current and former restaurant

employees and applicants and current and former restaurantlevel managers and applicants from May 11, 2002 to the

present. Plaintiffs’ requests nos. 6 and 7 are DENIED to the

extent they request the names, addresses, gender, and national

origin of defendants’ employees and applicants. Plaintiffs

have failed to demonstrate the relevance of this information

at this stage of litigation. 

(2) Plaintiffs’ request for production no. 8 is DENIED. 

The request is over broad and irrelevant in that corporate

employees are not members of the alleged putative classes. 

(3) Plaintiffs’ request for production no. 9 is DENIED. 

As written, plaintiffs requests all conceivable documents

pertaining to daily work assignments. At this stage of

litigation, the request is overly burdensome and irrelevant to

plaintiffs’ need to develop statistical data for class

certification purposes. 

(4) Plaintiffs’ requests for production nos. 31 and 32

are DENIED. These requests seek personal information about

defendants’ employees and applicants. At this stage of

litigation, the requests are overly burdensome and irrelevant. 

(5) Plaintiffs’ requests for production nos. 34, 35, 36

Case 4:06-cv-03153-CW Document 42 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 5
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

are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants shall

produce all EEO-1 reports and all comparable compliance

reports submitted to any federal, state, or local agency on

behalf of each of its restaurants between May 11, 2002 to the

present. Plaintiffs’ requests for documents referring or

relating to the described reports are, at this stage, overly

burdensome. 

(6) The denials recited above are made without prejudice

to plaintiffs’ ability to renew their requests at later stages

of litigation.

(7) Defendants are ORDERED to provide further discovery

consistent with this order no later than January 2, 2007. 

Dated: November 28, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\WYNNE\DISC.ORDER.1KW2.BZ.VERSION.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-03153-CW Document 42 Filed 11/28/06 Page 5 of 5