Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02062/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02062-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Go Daddy Software, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2062-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court held a discovery conference call on November 4, 2005. On t he basis of

the conference call and the Court’s subsequent review of cases, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The fact discovery deadline in this case shall be extended to December 21,

2005, for the following purposes only:

(a) to permit the deposition of Defendant’s officer, Mr. Parsons;

(b) to permit t he deposition of three of the employees whose depositions

were permit t ed in the Court’s Order of October 24, 2005 (see Doc.#52

¶ 2); and

(c) to permit Defendant t o depose the trial witnesses disclosed by

Plaintiff two weeks before the discovery deadline.

2. The foregoing extension shall not affect any other deadline in this case,

including the deadline for filing dispositive motions.

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 65 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 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

1 T he EEOC also cited Sender v. Mann, 225 F.R.D. 645 (D. Colo. 2004). This case

cites Dixon, but does not address the disclosure of witness home addresses and telephone

numbers.

- 2 -

3. When the Court permitted Plaintiff to conduct five additional depositions

(Doc. #52 ¶ 2), Plaintiff had already noticed the depositions of approximately ten

individuals. One of those depositions subsequently was cancelled. The Court will permit

that deposition to occur, of another witness, in addition to the five depositions permitted

in the Court’s previous Order (Doc. #52 ¶ 2).

3. The parties disagree on whether Defendant should be required to disclose

the home addresses and phone numbers of certain current employees of Defendant.

Plaintiff argues that such disclosures are required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) and (g). Plaintiff also

asserts that the information was sought in a request for production of documents served

in May of this year. Defendant asserts that the employees in question have asked that

their home addresses and telephone numbers not be disclosed. As a result, Defendant has

disclosed only its general work address and telephone number, asserting that Plaintiff can

contact the employees at work.

The Court has reviewed the cases cited by the parties. In Dixon v. The Certainteed

Corp., 164 F.R.D. 685, 689 (D. Kan. 1996), the court held that witness disclosures under

Rule 26(a)(1) must include home addresses and telephone numbers, not just business

addresses and phone numbers.1

 In Banks v. Office of the Senate Sargeant-At-Arms, 222

F.R.D. 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2004), the court held that a defendant could p rovide the work address

and phone number of employees if the defendant agreed to produce the employees for

deposition or at trial, and that ot herwise the defendant must provide the witness’ home

address and phone number. In Waters v. United States Capitol Police Board, 216 F.R.D.

153, 164-65 (D.D.C. 2003), the court held that defendant was not required t o disclose the

home addresses and phone numbers of police officers, noting that “in these troubled

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 65 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

times” disclosures of p ersonal information about law enforcement officers should be

avoided.

This authority favors Plaintiff. The employees in this case are not law enforcement

officers. Nor does Plaintiff intend to depose them or necessarily call them as wit nesses at

trial. Because this case does not fall squarely under either Waters or Banks, the Court

concludes that the general rule in Dixon should apply: home addresses and telephone

numbers, not business addresses and telephone numbers, should be provided. 

Defendant notes that the employees are concerned about disclosure of their home

addresses and phone numbers. This as a legitimate concern. The parties are ordered to

treat the employees’ personal information as subject to the protective order governing

confidential information. Defendant shall make these disclosures on or before the close

of business on November 10, 2005.

DATED this 4th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02062-DGC Document 65 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 3