Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00751/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00751-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

JANE ROE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRITO-LAY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00751-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 4/18/16 JOINT 

LETTER RE: POTENTIAL FENTON 

DEPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 83

On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding whether Matthew 

Fenton, Defendant Frito-Lay’s employee, should have to undergo a deposition even though he has 

no recollection of interviewing Plaintiff. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 83.) 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jane Roe (a.k.a. Tanya Gippson) applied for a full-time packer position at FritoLay’s Modesto plant in late-2011. (Employment Application, Decl. of Matthew Fenton, “Fenton 

Decl.,” Dkt. No. 83-1, Ex. B at 5-7.) According to her personnel file, Plaintiff underwent a 

“Structured Interview” on December 15, 2011, which she passed. (2011 Application Checklist -

Modesto, Fenton Decl., Ex. B at 4.) The next step on the Application Checklist is a background 

check, which was requested on January 10, 2012. Id. The background check was reviewed for 

discrepancies on January 23, 2012, which Plaintiff failed. Id. The next step on the Checklist is the 

“Leadership Interview,” which was conducted by Matthew Fenton on December 27, 2011. (Fenton 

Decl., Ex. A at 32.) Mr. Fenton’s notes indicate that Plaintiff failed the interview. Id. 

Notwithstanding the alleged failure, a criminal background check was performed two weeks later. 

(See 2011 Application Checklist at 4.)

///

Case 4:14-cv-00751-HSG Document 84 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

The parties do not dispute the relevance of Mr. Fenton’s testimony to determine why 

Plaintiff was not hired. (Joint Letter at 1.) Rather, Defendant contends that since Mr. Fenton has 

no recollection of Plaintiff or her interview, even after reviewing his Leadership Interview notes 

and her file, and has signed a sworn declaration to that effect, that the cost and time relating to his 

deposition would be unduly burdensome in relation to the relevance of his testimony. (Joint Letter 

at 2.)

Plaintiff contends that while “Mr. Fenton presently lacks specific recollection regarding his 

experience with Plaintiff, the evidence produced to date raises genuine questions about the 

regularity of the ‘Leadership Interview’ process conducted by Mr. Fenton and its weight in 

Defendant’s hiring process.” (Joint Letter at 4.) Therefore, the deposition is “relevant to 

determining whether Plaintiff’s alleged failure of [the] ‘Leadership Interview’ has any bearing on 

the typicality of her claims in this case.” Id. Plaintiff also intends to question Mr. Fenton 

regarding the interview process in general, “in order to assess the evidentiary weight of the 

document purporting to establish that Plaintiff was denied employment on the basis of her 

interview with Mr. Fenton.” Id. Plaintiff argues that deposition is the most efficient means of 

eliciting this information, because a series of written questioning could take months of back-andforth communications. Id.

Defendant’s Application Checklist outlines the series of steps in the interview process. If

the Checklist is sequential, the Leadership Interview comes after the Background Check. Here, 

however, temporally, Mr. Fenton interviewed Plaintiff weeks before the criminal background 

check was requested. Mr. Fenton should have to explain, at least generally, under what 

circumstances a background check would be requested for an applicant who failed the Leadership 

Interview. Furthermore, the Court agrees that these questions are best answered by way of 

deposition, especially in light of the impending discovery cut-off. 

While surely taking Mr. Fenton’s deposition imposes some burden on Defendant, it has 

failed to specify how the burden outweighs the relevancy beyond Mr. Fenton’s failure to 

remember Plaintiff individually. This is a putative class action, so his general knowledge of the 

Case 4:14-cv-00751-HSG Document 84 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

interview process, gained from conducting approximately 150 interviews during his six years as 

Supply Chain Director at Frito-Lay, is surely relevant as well. (See Fenton Decl. ¶ 5.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s request to enjoin Mr. Fenton’s deposition is denied, and Plaintiff 

is permitted to take the deposition of Mr. Fenton. The parties shall meet and confer regarding 

scheduling, and any requests to continue any discovery deadlines should be directed to the 

presiding judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00751-HSG Document 84 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 3