Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07965/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07965-1/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOUBLECLICK INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-06-07965 JSW (EDL)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

In accordance with Judge White’s standing order, the parties in this employment

discrimination case filed a joint letter requesting the Court’s intervention in a discovery dispute. On

June 26, 2007, Judge White referred this case to this Court for resolution of this discovery dispute

and all future discovery matters. Having reviewed the parties’ joint letter, the Court issues the

following Order. 

The discovery dispute presented is whether Defendant should be permitted to discover

Plaintiff’s personnel file from her former employer, Eyeblaster. There is a limited privacy right in

employment records; a court must carefully balance the right to privacy with the need for discovery. 

See Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d 516,

526-27 (1981). 

Defendant states that Plaintiff “signed an authorization allowing any of her former employers

to furnish Doubleclick with any information concerning her background,” and Plaintiff does not

deny that she did so. Such an authorization, coupled with the fact that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit,

substantially reduces her privacy interest. Even so, especially, as here, in the context of a third party

subpoena, that privacy interest must be outweighed by relevance to justify intrusion into private

Case 3:06-cv-07965-JSW Document 21 Filed 07/26/07 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

2

matters. Defendants have only made a sufficient showing of relevance for a limited subset of

documents that may be contained in the personnel file. Specifically, discoverable documents are

those that address the subject matter of Plaintiff’s statements to Defendant in the hiring process on

which Defendant says it relied, i.e., her successful management (or lack thereof) of accounts at

Eyeblaster and the reasons that certain accounts were transferred away from her at Eyeblaster. 

While earnings documents contained in the personnel file would also be relevant, Plaintiff states that

she has already provided evidence establishing her earnings at Eyeblaster, so production of payroll

records from Eyeblaster is not necessary. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall obtain and review her personnel file from Eyeblaster as soon as

possible, and produce documents from the file to Defendant in accordance with this Order and

pursuant to the parties’ protective order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07965-JSW Document 21 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2