Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01852/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01852-5/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

1 07cv01852

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOSSEIN ZEINALI, Civil No. 07cv01852-JM (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY

[Doc. No. 36]

v.

RAYTHEON COMPANY, and DOES 1-25,

Defendant.

On September 24, 2008, the Court held a telephonic conference on Plaintiff Hossein Zeinali’s

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. [Doc. No. 36.] Ray Keramati, Esq., appeared for

Plaintiff. John S. Adler, Esq., appeared for Defendant Raytheon Company. Plaintiff’s moving papers

were filed on September 8, 2008. [Doc. No. 36.] Defendant’s opposition was filed on September 22,

2008. [Doc. No. 39.] Having considered the submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel,

the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges discrimination based on his national origin that resulted in him

being denied promotions and transfers and ultimately resulted in his termination by Defendant. He also

alleges Defendant discriminated against him and terminated him in retaliation for his complaints about

certain budget reporting improprieties.

Plaintiff propounded interrogatory requests on defendant seeking “statistical information relevant

to [his] second cause of action for disparate impact discrimination.” Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support

Case 3:07-cv-01852-MMA-KSC Document 42 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv01852

of Motion to Compel (“Plaintiff’s Memo”) at 7. [Doc. No. 36.] Plaintiff’s allegation in his second cause

of action is that Defendant uses prior military service as a factor in hiring, promoting and firing

employees and it has a disparate impact on persons of Plaintiff’s national origin and other minorities.

Plaintiff therefore sought a list identifying all [of Defendant’s] employees in San Diego who at any time

during the plaintiff’s employment with defendant held any E-4 or E-5 position, and for each employee,

his or her employment history, including race, national origin and ethnicity and whether the employee

was a former member of the uniformed services. (Interrogatories 12, 13, 14, and 15.) Plaintiff’s Memo

at 7-9. Plaintiff contends that this statistical information will provide the data needed for his disparate

impact claim. Id. at 10.

Defendant objected on numerous grounds including that the request violated the privacy rights of

third parties, was burdensome and sought information not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. The objection is sustained. The plaintiff’s request seeks personal

information about all Raytheon E-4 and E-5 employees for a four year period, presumably with the

expectation of finding a pattern of disparate impact on minority employees resulting from Raytheon’s

alleged military service preference in promotion decisions. Plaintiff’s complaint however is limited to

disparate impact on persons of Plaintiff’s national origin. Even if a pattern of disparate impact was

statistically established for other minorities, it would not be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. The requests

are overbroad, burdensome and not relevant to the claims in this case. The motion to compel further

responses to Interrogatories 12, 13, 14 and 15 is DENIED. 

Plaintiff also seeks to compel further responses to Interrogatories 19 and 20, seeking the salaries

and benefit packages of employees selected for positions for which the Plaintiff applied and was rejected

from 2002 to 2006. Plaintiff contends that this economic information is relevant to his damages claim —

it reflects the income he would have been making had he not been denied promotion due to the

company’s discrimination. Defendant objected to providing this information on a number of grounds,

including that it is not relevant to the claims in this case. The operative complaint alleges that Plaintiff

was denied promotions due to his national origin. Plaintiff submitted applications for promotion during

2004 and his last application for a promotion in Raytheon in February 2005. That position was filled on

April 19, 2005 by another person. Defendant contends that a claim for discrimination arising from the

Case 3:07-cv-01852-MMA-KSC Document 42 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 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

3 07cv01852

denial of each application had to be filed within two years of the individual denial. The Plaintiff did not

file his complaint until August of 2007, well beyond the two years for even the final application so the

claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that if Plaintiff is time-barred from

alleging he did not receive any of these promotions due to discrimination, he is also barred from

claiming the salary increase he may have received from one of those denied jobs as damages in his

wrongful termination case. Defendant’s Opposition at 5-6. [Doc. No. 39.] The discovery, Defendant

contends, is therefore not relevant or likely to lead to admissible evidence. Further the production of the

salary information for the positions Plaintiff was denied would result in expensive and burdensome

expert analysis of hypothetical earning losses that are not admissible. 

Plaintiff did not dispute the Defendant’s analysis but argued that he is moving to amend the

complaint to allege a retaliation claim based on his reporting of discriminatory behavior by his

supervisor in 2004. If allowed to amend, Plaintiff contends the discrimination claim based on retaliation

would not be time-barred and the lost promotion opportunities and lost income would be relevant. If

Plaintiff is permitted to amend such that these early promotion denials are relevant to the claims in the

case, the Plaintiff may renew his requests for the salary information. The motion to compel further

responses to Interrogatories 19 and 20 is DENIED without prejudice. 

Finally, Plaintiff moves to compel the production of all fixed price and cost reimbursement

contracts between Raytheon and the federal government related to the DDGX/DDG1000 project during

the period of Plaintiff’s employment, Requests for Production 89 and 90. The Defendant objects on the

basis that the request is burdensome and does not seek relevant information.

Plaintiff alleges that the federal government required certain reports, Budget Change Requests

(“BCR”), be generated when budget changes were made on the project he supervised during his

employment. He further alleges that budget changes were instituted by Raytheon and no corresponding

BCR was prepared and he complained that it violated federal guidelines. As a result of his complaints

regarding this practice Plaintiff alleges he was terminated. Plaintiff contends that Raytheon’s violation

of its BCR policies was a violation of federal rules and regulations and the government contracts related

to the DDGX/DDG1000 project will have relevant information regarding BCR policies.

Case 3:07-cv-01852-MMA-KSC Document 42 Filed 09/25/08 Page 3 of 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

4 07cv01852

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in part. Defendant is hereby ordered to produce any

sections of the government contracts regarding the DDGX/DDG1000 projects that describe or refer to

BCR policies. The production may be made pursuant to the Protective Order in place in this litigation. 

Any responsive documents shall be produced no later than October 3, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01852-MMA-KSC Document 42 Filed 09/25/08 Page 4 of 4