Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01642/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01642-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA MATEER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INTEROCEAN AMERICAN SHIPPING

CORP. and DOES 1–25,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01642 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

QUASH SUBPOENA AND

REQUEST FOR ORDER TO

WITHDRAW SUBPOENA

INTRODUCTION

In this sexual-harassment case, plaintiff Christina Mateer moves to quash a subpoena or,

in the alternative, requests an order to defendants to withdraw the subpoena (Letters from

Mathew Stephenson, counsel for plaintiff, to the Court (July 11 & 12, 2006). Defendant

Interocean American Shipping Corp.’s subpoena is an attempt to find out why plaintiff was

fired for “gross misconduct” by a previous employer. The reasons why she was fired may be

relevant to the claims and defenses in the instant action. The motion and request are therefore

DENIED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff worked as a steward and baker aboard the CSX Expedition, a ship operated by

CSX Lines, LLC, from December 20, 2002, through January 4, 2003. She was terminated for

gross misconduct. Plaintiff later applied to work for defendant aboard the Mount Washington, a

ship it operated. In considering her application, defendant checked her employment record. 

Case 3:06-cv-01642-WHA Document 43 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 5
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

That check showed the gross-misconduct termination (Letter from Stephenson (July 11), Exh.

C). Defendant nevertheless hired her. She worked for defendant from March 30 to April 4,

2004. 

Plaintiff later took a job with a different employer aboard the merchant vessel Patriot

Pacific Gulf Marine. Defendant took over operation of the ship and retained almost the entire

crew, including plaintiff. She claims that a seaman aboard the ship made unwelcome romantic

overtures to her repeatedly, even after she asked him to stop. She reported his conduct to the

captain. The captain allegedly responded by blaming her for the situation, refusing to pay her

overtime and eventually firing her (Compl. ¶¶ 7–10). Plaintiff filed the instant action claiming

that defendant is therefore liable for Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation, and Jones Act

negligence.

On June 28, 2006, the United States District Court for the Western District of North

Carolina issued a subpoena, at defendant’s instigation, to Horizon Lines, LLC, seeking all

records pertaining to plaintiff and to her service aboard, and discharge, from the CSX

Expedition for the December 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003. (CSX Lines was sold after

plaintiff’s employment by the company. Its new owner renamed the company Horizon Lines.) 

The subpoenaed documents are due Tuesday, July 18, 2006 (Stephenson Letter (July 11), Exh.

A). 

On July 11, plaintiff asked the Court to “appropriately limit the scope of discovery so as

to prevent the North Carolina employer [Horizon Lines] from producing documents not relevant

to the instant action . . . .” The next day, plaintiff stated that “to the extent that the Court

. . . does not have the authority to quash the subpoena at issue [because it was issued by a

different court] . . . plaintiff requests that the Court direct defendant to withdraw said

subpoena.” After briefing by defendant, the matter was submitted on the filings. No hearing

was held. 

ANALYSIS

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party.” FRCP 26(b)(1). “Relevant information for purposes of

Case 3:06-cv-01642-WHA Document 43 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 5
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

discovery is information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff claims that the information sought is not relevant. Plaintiff is wrong. First,

plaintiff submitted a background-check form to defendant that failed to list her employment

aboard the CSX Expedition, from which she was terminated. She omitted this information

despite certifying as “correct and true” her response to an item that required a “list of all

previous employers for the previous 24 months” (Stephenson Letter (July 11), Exh. E). Plaintiff

claims that, because she ran out of room on the front of the form, she may have listed other

employers on the reverse side, per the form’s instructions. Although defendant did not produce

to plaintiff the reverse side of the form, it now states that it has the original form and that the

back of it is blank. Defendant offers to provide it to the Court (Letter from Kevin Odell,

counsel for defendant, to the Court 2, n.1 (July 13)). Plaintiff’s failure to report her

employment aboard the CSX Expedition is relevant to her credibility, an issue which may be

relevant to her claims if she is a witness. Although defendant raised this point in meet-andconfer correspondence, plaintiff has not responded to the relevance of this evidence to her

credibility. 

Second, the fact that plaintiff was fired for gross misconduct justifies defendant’s

interest in finding out the type of misconduct. Sexual misconduct may be relevant to plaintiff’s

subjective perception of the alleged harassment aboard the Patriot Pacific Gulf Marine. To

make out a Title VII claim for harassment due to an abusive work environment, plaintiff must

show that she subjectively perceived that environment was abusive. See Harris v. Forklift Sys.,

Inc. 510 U.S. 17, 21–22 (1993). Any public sexual misconduct aboard the CSX Expedition

could be relevant to the types of workplace behavior she would consider abusive. The

documents may also lead to interviews with plaintiff’s fellow Expedition crew members, which

also may be probative of her behavior in the workplace and, by inference, of what behavior she

found abusive. 

Case 3:06-cv-01642-WHA Document 43 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 5
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 * Because the documents are discoverable, it is moot whether or not a judge in this district may quash a

subpoena issued by another court.

4

Plaintiff claims that the discovery is not relevant, however, because “in actions

involving workplace harassment, evidence of the alleged victim’s ‘sexual predisposition’ or

‘other sexual behavior’ is inadmissible,” citing Federal Rule of Evidence 412(a). A victim’s

sexual behavior, however, is admissible if its “probative value substantially outweighs the

danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party.” FRE 412(a)(2). It is

possible, therefore, that any sexual misconduct by plaintiff would be admissible. Plaintiff also

cites, without argument, B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002), claiming

that it is “directly on point with respect to the issue of the relevance of a plaintiff’s sexual

activities in the workplace” (Stephenson Letter (July 12)). The decision held that the evidence

of the plaintiff’s private sexual conduct was not probative of her perception of sexual behavior

in the workplace. Id. at 1105. Here, the records may reveal public sexual behavior that would

have probative value, not only private sexual acts. It therefore may have probative value. 

Finally, plaintiff claims this evidence would not be relevant because it is character evidence that

would be inadmissible under Rule of Evidence 404(a) (“Evidence of a person’s character or a

trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on

a particular occasion . . . .”). Evidence of sexual misconduct, however, may be admissible

despite this rule if it is probative of a person’s subjective perception, as opposed to the person’s

actions on a particular occasion. 

CONCLUSION

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendant is not merely fishing. It has substantial

reason to think that the subpoenaed records would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

The motion and request therefore are DENIED.

*

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

Case 3:06-cv-01642-WHA Document 43 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01642-WHA Document 43 Filed 07/17/06 Page 5 of 5