Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

1

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 595 and 636-38.

2

 While maintaining that it was under no obligation to do so, FedEx voluntarily agreed to

produce certain documents related to the test. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 FEDEX EXPRESS,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-2659 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

By letter briefs, the parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution.1 The

parties dispute whether FedEx is required to produce additional discovery2

 related to a personality test

developed and implemented in 2006, and used to select employees for customer contact positions.

Plaintiffs contend that FedEx should produce documents related to the test in response to a request

seeking “[a]ll documents related to any modifications to the BST and/or selection procedures and

qualifications for Courier, Ramp Transport Driver, Customer Service Agent, and Customer

Representative Positions, since FedEx’s First Response [February 1, 2004].” Plaintiffs also assert that

a witness produced by FedEx was not able to testify about how the personality test is actually being used

at FedEx, and they seek a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on this topic.

FedEx argues that it is not required to produce any additional documents because the personality

test does not modify FedEx’s selection procedures and qualifications, but rather it supplements existing

tools. The Court is not persuaded by FedEx’s semantics. The personality test is an additional step that

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 670 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 The Court is not persuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that the personality test documents are

responsive to Request No. 11, which sought “documents related to the search for alternative criteria

and/or selection procedures . . .” (emphasis added). “Alternative” means “allowing or necessitating a

choice between two or more things.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, retrieved Feb. 1, 2007, from Dictionary.com website:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative).

2

applicants must go through during the application process. Even though the new personality test does

not supplant existing procedures and qualifications, it “modifies” the selection process by “changing”

and “altering” it. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed. (retrieved

Feb. 1, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modify).3

After review of Dr. Campion’s deposition testimony, the Court further finds that plaintiffs are

entitled to a limited Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the topic of FedEx’s actual use of the personality test.

Alternatively, plaintiffs may propound a single interrogatory on this topic.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents responsive to

Request No. 13 of plaintiffs’ Twenty-Seventh Set of Requests for Production of Documents within 10

days of the date of this order. Defendant is also ordered to either produce a Rule 30(b) witness for a 2

hour deposition limited to the topic of FedEx’s actual use of the personality test, or to respond to an

interrogatory on this topic within 10 days of the propounding of such an interrogatory.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 670 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2