Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAMELA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GYRUS ACMI, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-00805 BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 

PERSONNEL FILE AND RETURN OF 

PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. 173

On October 31, 2016, plaintiff filed an “Administrative Motion,” seeking an order 

compelling defendants to produce a complete copy of her personnel file and to return documents 

that she claims are privileged. Defendants oppose the motion. For the reasons to be discussed, 

plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. Although plaintiff titled her document as an 

“Administrative Motion,” it is clear enough from the text of the motion that she intended for it to 

be a motion to compel discovery. Even so, defendants correctly note that plaintiff’s motion was 

not brought in compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. 

(Indeed, on a prior unilateral discovery motion plaintiff filed, this court advised her of the need to 

comply with that Standing Order, see Dkt. 139.) The bigger procedural problem for plaintiff, 

however, is that the present discovery motion was filed ten days too late. Under the court’s Civil 

Local Rules and this court’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, all fact discovery 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 220 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 4
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 California

disputes should have been filed no later than seven days after the October 14, 2016 close of fact 

discovery---that is, by October 21, 2016. Civ. L.R. 37-3; Standing Order re Civil Discovery 

Disputes, Section D. The fact that plaintiff is proceeding pro se does not excuse her from 

complying with rules that all litigants are obliged to follow.

With respect to the merits of plaintiff’s request for production of her personnel file, she 

says that sometime around October 14, 2016, defendants produced documents that she previously 

had not received when she obtained a copy of her personnel file in 2012. So, several days later, 

she asked for a complete copy of her file. Putting aside that plaintiff never served a formal 

document request, defendants state that plaintiff has already received two complete copies of her 

personnel file: once on February 15, 2012, and then again on October 7, 2013. (Dkt. 183-1, 

Damron-Hsiao Decl., ¶¶ 2-4). They maintain that her personnel file remains exactly the same 

today as it was then. (Id. ¶ 4). Notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that defendants’ recent 

production included other documents that she believes should be part of her personnel file, 

defendants state that those documents were never part of her file and were simply produced in 

response to other discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 7). On this record, this court finds no basis to 

conclude that plaintiff has not received complete copies of her personnel file, and her request for 

an order compelling production of the same is denied.

As for plaintiff’s request for the return of documents she claims are privileged, it is 

plaintiff’s job to review her production and advise defendants if she contends that any documents 

are privileged. Plaintiff’s demands for defendants to return her entire document production are 

unreasonable. Defendants apparently did plaintiff the courtesy of notifying her that potentially 

privileged documents may have been produced inadvertently. The burden then fell to plaintiff to 

review her production and advise if any privileged materials were produced and whether any such 

production was done intentionally. The record presented demonstrates that she has not done so. 

Nor has plaintiff identified in her motion what documents she says are privileged, much less the 

bases for any claimed privilege. Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling the return of alleged 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 220 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 4
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 California

privileged documents is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 220 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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 California

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Glenn Lansing Briggs gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com

Kymberleigh Damron-Hsiao kdh@kadingbriggs.com, mrogers@kadingbriggs.com, 

smohammadi@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com

Pamela Williams Pam.Williams1001@gmail.com

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

Pamela Williams

909 Marina Village Parkway #292

Alameda, CA 94501

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 220 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 4