Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00651/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00651-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BYRON SCHAEFER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TARGET CORPORATION, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:24-cv-00651-DC-SCR 

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE 

Introduction 

The parties presented this dispute to the Court pursuant to the undersigned’s informal 

discovery dispute process. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff seeks the contact information for all witnesses 

identified in Defendant Target Corporation’s (“Target”) initial disclosures and for all individuals 

responsive to an interrogatory Plaintiff served on Target. Defendant resists such disclosures. The 

Court discussed this dispute with the parties during an informal telephonic hearing on December 

5, 2024. At the Court’s direction, the parties submitted their meet and confer correspondence in 

camera, to assist the Court in resolving this dispute. Having now reviewed that correspondence 

and further considered the issues, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested contact 

information. 

Analysis 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) requires a party to disclose “the name and, if 

Case 2:24-cv-00651-DC-SCR Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 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 

2 

known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable 

information . . . that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use 

would be solely for impeachment[.]” In addition to this initial disclosure requirement, litigants 

often seek and obtain contact information of other potential witnesses through interrogatories. 

See United States v. Real Property Located in Los Angeles, California, 2024 WL 4002844, at *7-

8 (C.D. Cal.) (requiring the disclosure in response to an interrogatory of the “identity of 

individuals with discoverable information about” an issue in the case because the “contact 

information for such individuals is properly discoverable”). Target nevertheless argues that 

Plaintiff is not entitled to the contact information of certain of its employees at the “Team 

Leader” level and above. Target’s argument is based on two principles: (1) the employees at the 

“Team Leader” level and above are “managers” who should not be contacted ex parte, and (2) 

Target’s employees have a privacy interest in their contact information. 

 During the informal discovery conference, Plaintiff’s counsel recognized her ethical 

obligation not to contact ex parte witnesses who are represented or who could make vicarious 

admissions. However, Target’s counsel does not claim to represent the individuals whose contact 

information Plaintiff seeks. Moreover, given the management structure the parties described to 

the Court, it is unlikely that Target would be bound the admissions of those individuals. See Hill 

v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that statements made by mid-level 

managers who were not involved in decision to discharge plaintiff were not vicarious admissions 

by employer). 

As for Target’s privacy argument, it is true that California’s state law privacy protections 

apply in a diversity case like this one, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 501. See Hill v. 

Eddie Bauer, 242 F.R.D. 556, 562 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Under state law, all Californians have a 

conditional privacy interest in their contact information. See Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 

5th 531, 552-53 (2017). However, the contact information at issue here can be produced subject 

to a protective order, thus adequately protecting the privacy interests of the handful of employees 

whose information would be subject to disclosure. See, e.g., Holland-Hewitt v. Allstate Life Ins. 

Co., 343 F.R.D. 154, 176 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (“[G]iven the presence of the protective order, the 

Case 2:24-cv-00651-DC-SCR Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 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 

Court does not find the privacy concerns outweigh the discoverability of the absent member 

contact information.”). 

Conclusion 

 For the foregoing reasons, and subject to the following conditions, Target is ORDERED 

to produce contact information for the individuals identified in its initial disclosures and the 

individuals identified in response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory. Target may mark this information 

confidential under the protective order entered in this action. To the extent an individual is 

represented by counsel for Target, Target may so indicate in its production. To the extent Target 

has a bona fide belief that an individual could make a vicarious admission, Target may so 

indicate. For individuals who are represented by counsel for Target or who Target believes could 

make a vicarious admission, Plaintiff’s counsel shall not contact them ex parte. Counsel for 

Target may nonetheless offer to accept service of a deposition notice or subpoena on behalf of 

any individual identified in its initial disclosures or in response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory. 

Dated: December 9, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00651-DC-SCR Document 23 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3