Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04011/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04011-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY J. HONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RIGHT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-04011 PJH (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF MARY

JEAN HONG’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANT RIGHT MANAGEMENT

CONSULTANTS, INC.’S FURTHER

RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Plaintiff MARY JEAN HONG’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant RIGHT

MANAGEMENTCONSULTANTS, INC.’s(“Defendant”) FurtherResponses and Documents to Plaintiff’s

RequestforProductionofDocuments, Set One, came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Elizabeth

D. Laporte on December 6, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. in Department E, Courtroom 15 of the above-entitled Court.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and oral argument, the Court enters the following Order:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED with respect to the following matters:

A. Personnel Files of James Greenway and Jay Klein 

(Plaintiff’s Documents Requests Nos. 49 & 50)

The Court orders Defendant to produce to Plaintiffthe entire contents ofthe personnelfiles ofJames

Greenway and Jay Klein by the end of business on Friday, December 9, 2005, however, redacting any

medical, tax and compensation information. The Court findsthat the documents are discoverable, given that

plaintiff has agreed that the personnel file materials can be redacted to exclude the medical, tax and

compensation information ofthese individuals and confidentialinformationcontained therein is fully protected

by the stipulated Protective Order of Confidential Information (“Protective Order”), previously entered by

this Court. 

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 75 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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 1

 The responsive documents produced by Defendant thus far are identified as Bate-stamped numbers D000290-

D000367. 

2

The Court further orders that in the event Defendant withholds any information from these files based

on attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privilege, Defendant will provide a detailed privilege log

identifying this informationin accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 5 ofthis Court’s Order

Re: Discovery Procedures. Subsequent to the hearing, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Defendant would

provide a privilege log on all items redacted or withheld by Friday, December 16, 2005. 

B. Withheld Pages of Jay Klein’s Journal and Calendar

Defendant is further ordered to produce all previously withheld pages from Jay Klein’s journal and

calendar for years 2002 through 20031 by the end ofbusiness on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. Defendant

is permitted to redact from these pages, if necessary, Mr. Klein’s personal information to the extent this

informationdoes not address any personnel, employment or work-related issue thatmay be deemed relevant

to this action. Further, if any journal or calendar page is redacted on the grounds that it entails sensitive

information about another employee that is not relevant to any claims or defenses asserted in this matter,

Defendant shall provide a detailed privilege log in accordance with the requirements setforth in paragraph 5

of the Court’s Order Re: Discovery Procedures to justify each redaction. Subsequent to the hearing on this

matter, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Defendant would provide a privilege log on all items redacted or

withheld by Friday, December 23, 2005. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is MOOT with respect to the April 24, 2003 Document Withheld 

by Defendant Based On Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine. The Court determined that,

absent further order ofthis court, the document identified in Defendant’s privilege log entitled “EmailfromJay

Klein to NancyCzajkowski, Jim Greenwayand Ted Youngregarding terminationofMary Jean Hong,” dated

April 24, 2003, would be subject to an in camera review. Defendant was ordered to provide written

notificationto this Court by the end ofbusiness on Thursday, December 8, 2005, as to whether it would agree

to produce this document for judicial review or state it reasons why it objects to an in camera review. The

Court ordered Plaintiff would have until the end ofbusiness on Friday, December 9, 2005, to submit a written

reply to Defendant’s brief. 

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 75 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Subsequent to the hearing, Defendant elected instead to produce the April 24, 2003 email to plaintiff

contemporaneous with its production of the personnel files, without waiving expressly or impliedly any ofits

objections with regard to this email or waiving any assertions of attorney-client communications or attorney

work product privilege.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED with respect to the first log entry on Defendant’s

privilege log. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04011-PJH Document 75 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3