Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

(Related Case No. C 04-0099 SI)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTFOR

TELECONFERENCE

On July 28, 2005, the Court received a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the circumstances of

their inspection of documents at the FedEx Sunnyvale premises on July 27, 2005. On July 22, 2005, counsel

attempted to contact defense counsel to arrange the inspection. Because defense counsel was away on

vacation, it took several days to schedule. On July 27, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., plaintiffs’ counsel arrived at the

Sunnyvale site. What transpired between counselis the subject of dispute: each party contends that the other

behaved unreasonably and obstructed the progress of the document inspection. Plaintiffs contend that there

were documents missing from the files provided, that plaintiffs’ counsel was only allowed to inspect one box

of files in at a time, and that defendant forced counsel to leave at 5:00 p.m. While defendant agrees that the

files were provided one box at a time, counsel states that she made effortsto accommodate plaintiffs’ requests

and submits correspondence between the parties that support this characterization. 

Plaintiffs’ counselrequested a telephone conference “forthe purposes ofhaving the Court rule on what

should be done about the Defendants’ lack of cooperation with this discovery.” Pls.’ Letter Br. at 3. Defense

counsel responded that a teleconference was not necessary. Because it is not clear what relief, if any, the

parties seek at this point, and because the Court cannot determine which party behaved more unreasonably

on July 27, 2005, it DENIES plaintiffs’ request for intervention. 

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 207 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/29/06

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 207 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 4
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

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

(Related Case No. C 04-0099 SI)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTFOR

TELECONFERENCE

On July 28, 2005, the Court received a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the circumstances of

their inspection of documents at the FedEx Sunnyvale premises on July 27, 2005. On July 22, 2005, counsel

attempted to contact defense counsel to arrange the inspection. Because defense counsel was away on

vacation, it took several days to schedule. On July 27, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., plaintiffs’ counsel arrived at the

Sunnyvale site. What transpired between counselis the subject of dispute: each party contends that the other

behaved unreasonably and obstructed the progress of the document inspection. Plaintiffs contend that there

were documents missing from the files provided, that plaintiffs’ counsel was only allowed to inspect one box

of files in at a time, and that defendant forced counsel to leave at 5:00 p.m. While defendant agrees that the

files were provided one box at a time, counsel states that she made effortsto accommodate plaintiffs’ requests

and submits correspondence between the parties that support this characterization. 

Plaintiffs’ counselrequested a telephone conference “forthe purposes ofhaving the Court rule on what

should be done about the Defendants’ lack of cooperation with this discovery.” Pls.’ Letter Br. at 3. Defense

counsel responded that a teleconference was not necessary. Because it is not clear what relief, if any, the

parties seek at this point, and because the Court cannot determine which party behaved more unreasonably

on July 27, 2005, it DENIES plaintiffs’ request for intervention. 

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 207 Filed 08/29/05 Page 3 of 4
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

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/29/06

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 207 Filed 08/29/05 Page 4 of 4