Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07305/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07305-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

RAJA KANNAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-07305-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 239, 243

The parties have submitted two discovery disputes to the Court. Plaintiff Raja Kannan 

requests access to documents defendant Apple Inc. produced and designated “Highly Confidential 

– Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (“AEO”). Dkt. No. 239. Apple moves to compel the deposition of Mr. 

Kannan’s expert witness, Stanley Stephenson, and Mr. Kannan’s response to Apple’s third request 

for production of documents. Dkt. No. 243. The Court held a hearing on both disputes on April 

28, 2020. Dkt. No. 245. For the reasons explained on the record, the Court orders as follows:

Dkt. No. 239 – Apple’s AEO designations

Apple shall review the documents that it has designated AEO to determine whether such 

designations can be removed or downgraded to “Confidential” and/or whether the AEO 

documents may be redacted to enable Mr. Kannan to have access to as much of Apple’s 

production as possible. In addition, Apple shall consider whether confidential employee-specific 

information—including comparator ratings, RSU awards, and bonus awards—may be provided to 

Mr. Kannan in anonymized form. Apple shall also review the deposition transcripts of Apple fact 

witnesses and the expert reports of both parties to determine whether any portions designated 

AEO may be redacted or re-designated so that Mr. Kannan may have access to the transcripts and 

Case 5:17-cv-07305-EJD Document 247 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 2
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

reports. 

Apple shall advise Mr. Kannan of the results of the above efforts—e.g., which documents 

will be produced without designations, with modified designations, and/or in redacted or 

anonymized form—and will re-produce such documents as appropriate no later than May 8, 2020. 

Apple will provide Mr. Kannan with an index (with Bates number, date, and short description) of 

any documents that remain designated AEO in whole or in part by May 11, 2020. 

The parties shall confer regarding a resolution of their dispute concerning Apple’s AEO 

designations and shall jointly report to the Court on the status of such resolution by May 15, 2020.

Dkt. No. 243 – Motion to compel deposition of plaintiff’s expert

Apple’s motion to compel is denied. Mr. Stephenson is a non-party whose testimony and 

document production can only be compelled by subpoena. Apple has not served a subpoena on 

Mr. Stephenson. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-07305-EJD Document 247 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 2