Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02542/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02542-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHERRY WILLIAM and JOSHUA 

ASHLEY KLAYMAN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 18-cv-02542-JSC 

ORDER RE: SUBPOENA DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE 

Re: Dkt. No. 131 

Sherry William and Joshua Klayman sue Morrison & Foerster LLP for pregnancy and 

gender employment discrimination, among other claims. Now pending before the Court is a joint 

discovery dispute letter brief regarding Defendant’s Rule 45 subpoenas to Ms. William’s former 

employer Freshfields and Ms. Klayman’s current employer Linklaters. (Dkt. No. 131.) Plaintiffs 

contend that the discovery Defendant seeks is their private information and that their right to 

privacy outweighs any need for the discovery. After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, 

the Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and denies in part 

and grants in part Plaintiffs’ request that the subpoenas be quashed. 

DISCUSSION 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) requires a court to quash a non-party 

subpoena that “requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or 

waiver applies[.]” Plaintiffs, as the parties objecting to the subpoenas, bear the burden of showing 

that Defendant should not be permitted to obtain the sought-after discovery. Botta v. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2018 WL 6257459 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018). 

As a preliminary matter, there can be no dispute that personnel and other employment 

Case 3:18-cv-02542-JSC Document 133 Filed 04/02/20 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 Californi

a

records implicate Plaintiffs’ privacy interests. Such records can nonetheless be ordered disclosed 

based on a specific showing of relevance. See, e.g., id. at *2. 

A. Freshfields Subpoena 

Defendant seeks from Ms. William’s former employer (1) her personnel file and 

communications about her job performance, and (2) documents and communications about the 

decision to classify her as a 2011 instead of a 2010. Communications about Ms. William’s job 

performance and Freshfield’s classification decision are relevant to a claim and defense in this 

action as Plaintiff’s performance and demonstrated skills are central to the lawsuit. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see, e.g. id. at *2. Defendant is not required to accept Plaintiff’s testimony as to 

the reason for Freshfield’s classification decision, as Plaintiff implies. Further, Plaintiff’s 

insistence that any evidence as to her performance at Freshfields would be inadmissible 

misapprehends discovery. Material is discoverable if it is relevant to a claim or defense and “need 

not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff’s boilerplate 

“such discovery is not proportional” argument does not satisfy Plaintiff’s burden to successfully 

resist this relevant discovery. 

Defendant has not explained, however, how any other information in Plaintiff’s personnel 

file unrelated to her job performance is relevant to a claim or defense. Accordingly, the Court will 

quash the Freshfields subpoena to the extent it seeks Plaintiff’s entire personnel file. The 

Freshfields subpoena shall be limited to documents and communications regarding Plaintiff’s job 

performance and the classification decision. Such documents shall be produced subject to the 

protective order. 

B. Linklater Subpoena 

Defendant seeks to subpoena from Ms. Klayman’s current employer: 

(1) communications Ms. Klayman had with Linklaters about her 

claims against Morrison; (2) her performance evaluations and 

disciplinary records from an approximately one-year period, and (3) 

documents relating to her current compensation and benefits, 

including representations she made to Linklaters in negotiations. 

(Dkt. No. 131 at 5.) 

Case 3:18-cv-02542-JSC Document 133 Filed 04/02/20 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 Californi

a

Plaintiff does not contend that the communications she had with her current employer 

about her claims against Defendant are irrelevant; instead, she again contends that her testimony 

and documents regarding such communications should be sufficient. But, as is explained above, 

Defendant is not required to accept what Plaintiff asserts and instead has a right to discovery from 

others. Plaintiff makes the same argument as to her compensation and benefits: even though 

relevant, Defendant is required to accept the documents she produces. The Court does not agree. 

Plaintiff’s performance evaluations and disciplinary records for a one-year period are also 

relevant. If Plaintiff’s performance was exemplary, that would support her claim against 

Defendant; if problems were noted in the time frame near to her employment with Defendant, such 

evidence might support the defense. Again, as this is discovery, that such discovery, whatever it 

might be, is ultimately held inadmissible is not a reason for prohibiting the discovery. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, as with the Freshfields subpoena, Defendant has not articulated any 

reason why it should obtain Plaintiff’s entire personnel file, including documents unrelated to the 

categories Defendant identified in the joint letter brief. Accordingly, the subpoena will be quashed 

to the extent it seeks the entire personnel file. Any produced documents are likewise subject to the 

protective order. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 131. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 2, 2020 

 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-02542-JSC Document 133 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3