Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03942/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03942-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NICHOLAS SMITH and JENNIFER LYNN 

TAYLOR-SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN, a Delaware 

corporation, and Does 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-03942-EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 1

Re: Dkt. No. 37

Plaintiff Nicholas Smith previously was employed by defendant Northrup Grumman as a 

welder in defendant’s plant in Sunnyvale, California. Following a non-work related motorcycle 

accident on May 1, 2011, he was rendered a quadriplegic and could no longer perform his welder 

job. He received medical leave.

According to defendant: Plaintiff initially was to return to work on August 1, 2011. 

Smith’s doctors, however, subsequently advised that plaintiff was “paralyzed and unable to return 

to work.” (DDJR No. 1 at 7). And, in a November 16, 2011 letter, plaintiff’s doctor stated that 

Smith “will be permanently out of work.” (Id.). Two days later on November 18, 2011, defendant 

says it granted plaintiff’s request to extend his medical leave through May 1, 2013. (Id.). Then, 

on April 16, 2012, plaintiff’s doctor advised that Smith could return to work with restrictions: 

“He is unable to do manual labor. He may work in a managerial capacity. His activities may 

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 42 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 6
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

include running a crew, computer work, reading prints, clerical work, and other tasks not 

involving heavy physical labor.” (DDJR No. 1 at 7). Additionally, defendant says that the doctor 

sent a “Leave of Absence Return to Work Authorization” form indicating that Smith had 

permanent restrictions, i.e., no walking, no lifting 5-10 lbs., no working in tight spaces or confined 

areas, no squatting or climbing, and no working at heights. (Id.). According to defendant, Smith 

testified that he told his doctor what to write in the April 16, 2012 letter and on the form. For 

purposes of resolving this discovery matter, none of these assertions are disputed by plaintiff.

Smith says that he was considered for only four positions, all in the Sunnyvale plant: 

welder, rod room attendant, tool crib attendant, and drafting assistant. He was not placed in 

another position. Smith further alleges that he eventually received a full medical release from his 

doctor on January 9, 2013 and that he advised defendant of the same in a March 6, 2013 letter, but 

no one responded. (Dkt. 1, Complaint ¶ 4). His employment with Northrup Grumman was

terminated on May 2, 2013 when, defendant says, Smith’s 2-year maximum period for medical 

leave expired.

In this lawsuit, Smith claims that defendant discriminated against him based on his 

disability under California Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, 

et seq., including failure to reasonably accommodate his disability and to participate in a good 

faith interactive process to identify alternate positions for him in the company. His complaint, 

originally filed in state court, also asserts several common law claims for relief. Defendant 

removed the action here, asserting diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1, plaintiff seeks an order compelling 

Northrop Grumman to produce documents responsive to Document Request No. 7, which asks for

“[a]ny and all job descriptions used by Defendant, existing in the past four years, describing 

positions for which employees of Defendant’s Marine Systems Sunnyvale, California location 

were or are eligible to apply for transfer.” Defendant contends that the request is overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. The parties have agreed that the request properly should be limited to job 

descriptions that actually were posted. However, they still disagree on two issues: the proper 

temporal and geographic scope of the request. The matter is deemed suitable for determination 

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 42 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 6
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

without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the parties’ respective arguments,

and for the reasons discussed below, this court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s request

for an order compelling this discovery.

A. Temporal Scope

As originally drafted, Request 7 sought responsive documents dating back to December 

10, 2010, or about five months prior to plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff is now willing to narrow the 

request to documents going back to the May 1, 2011 date of his accident. Defendant contends that 

it should only have to produce documents between April 16, 2012 (when Smith’s doctor first 

wrote a letter stating that plaintiff could return to work with restrictions) and May 1, 2013 

(plaintiff’s last day of employment with the company). Plaintiff is unwilling to accept the April 

16, 2012 date because he claims that he told Northrup Grumman that he wanted to return to work 

earlier than the date on his doctor’s note. Plaintiff, however, does not identify what that earlier 

date was. His request for documents dating from his May 1, 2011 accident sweeps too broadly, 

and the burden and expense of that discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Nor has plaintiff demonstrated the relevance of open positions post-dating his 

employment with the company. This court therefore adopts defendant’s proposed dates and will 

require defendant to search for and produce all non-privileged, responsive documents dating 

between April 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013.

B. Geographic Scope

Plaintiff says that, as a Northrup Grumman employee, he could have applied for any open 

position in the United States. As such, he insists that defendant must look for available jobs 

nationwide. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that its search should be limited to a portion of

the Bay Area---specifically, to an area within one hour’s drive of plaintiff’s home in Redwood 

Shores.

Additionally, defendant argues that its search for documents should be tailored to 

plaintiff’s particular qualifications and restrictions (as reflected in his deposition testimony and 

medical records), contending that no valid discovery purpose is served by conducting a search for 

positions that plaintiff would not pursue or could not secure. Defendant says it asked plaintiff for 

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 42 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

a description of job skills and essential functions he has been able to perform since the accident, 

including a list of any functional limitations. But, defendant says plaintiff responded in circular 

fashion, stating only that “the job descriptions, for all positions which were available for plaintiff’s 

consideration as transfer opportunities, should be produced.” (DDJR No. 1 at 11). Citing Jensen 

v. Wells Fargo Bank, 102 Cal. Rptr.2d 55, 68-69 (Cal. App. 2000), plaintiff says that he does not 

bear the burden of identifying what jobs may have been available at the company. Even so, 

Jensen also says that “[i]t is an employee’s responsibility to understand his or her own physical or 

mental condition well enough to present the employer at the earliest opportunity with a concise list 

of restrictions which must be met to accommodate the employee.” Id. at 71.

This court is unpersuaded that defendant’s document search should be limited to an area 

within one hour’s drive of plaintiff’s home. Defendant does not deny that plaintiff could have 

applied for open positions anywhere in the country, but it claims that plaintiff is only interested in 

returning to the Sunnyvale plant. (DDJR No. 1 at 7). It points out that in deposition, plaintiff 

testified that he has not looked for another job (and won’t until this litigation is over) because 

(1) he only wants to work at Northrup Grumman and (2) the income must be high enough to cover 

childcare expenses (albeit, he did not specify the amount). Defendant further says that plaintiff’s 

spouse has been a teacher at Oak Grove, Lynbrook, and Menlo-Atherton high schools; that before 

his termination, plaintiff lived in South San Jose; that he moved to Redwood Shores in 2012 

during his medical leave and before his termination; and that he had conflicts with his spouse 

about the move and about his focusing solely on Northrup Grumman for other employment 

opportunities. Additionally, defendant claims that plaintiff has never expressed interest in 

pursuing work in other states. Be that as it may, defendant has not pointed to anything indicating 

that plaintiff clearly is only interested in the Sunnyvale plant or that he would not consider other 

Northrup Grumman jobs outside the Bay Area. Because there is no dispute that plaintiff could 

have applied for open positions in other states, this court finds that plaintiff’s request for discovery 

of open positions nationwide is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although defendant says that the search for and 

production of documents pertaining to open positions nationwide will involve considerable

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 42 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

burden, on this record, this court concludes that the burden imposed is not undue.

Defendant is not aided by its reliance on Smith v. JPMorgan Chase, No. C09-0168, 2011 

WL 31040 (W.D. La., Jan. 5, 2011). In that case, the plaintiff only sought discovery of open jobs 

within a 60-mile radius of her home. Id. at *4.

Defendant also contends that because plaintiff’s complaint is based solely on California 

(not federal) law, there is an inherent jurisdictional problem because California has no authority to 

compel an employer to place a local employee in another state. But, plaintiff argues, more 

persuasively, that the issue is not what remedies may be available in this court, but rather, whether 

defendant had or considered plaintiff for any such open positions and whether it fulfilled its 

obligations under the interactive process. 

Based on the foregoing, defendant shall forthwith search for and produce documents 

responsive to Request 7 pertaining to open positions in the United States. Request 7, however, 

will be limited to the period April 16, 2012 to May 1, 2013 and to plaintiff’s particular 

qualifications and restrictions, as reflected in his deposition testimony and medical records.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 42 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

5:13-cv-03942-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

George S. Duesdieker grgdr@yahoo.com, george@duesdieker.com

Michael A. Hoffman , III mhoffman@arenahoffman.com, aking@arenahoffman.com, 

blinsenbigler@arenahoffman.com

Ronald D. Arena rarena@arenahoffman.com, aking@arenahoffman.com, 

blinsenbigler@arenahoffman.com

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 42 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 6