Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

1 Defendant’s letter brief dated July 14, 2005. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a letter on July 15, 2005, asking

for additional time to respond to defendant’s motion, and then filed a letter brief in opposition on August 8,

2005. Defendant filed a reply letter on August 10, 2005. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-0098 SI

(Related Case No. C 04-0099 SI)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA

By letter briefs,1 defendant seeks an order quashing a subpoena issued by plaintiffs to a court reporter

for the deposition transcript of Michael Snyder in the case of Rosalinda Pettaway-Vint v. Federal Express

Corp., currently pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The transcript contains testimony about

alleged racial epithets used by Michael Pigors, the current FedEx Express Vice President for the Western

Region and a named defendant in this case, David Rebholz, Vice President for Operations in the Western

Region, and Ted Weise, former CEO. 

FedEx seeks to quash the subpoena on grounds that the deposition transcript is not relevant or

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It relies on the Court’s reasoning in a

prior order issued in another case pending before this Court, Satchell v. FedEx, C 03-2659 SI, where the

Court denied plaintiffs’ request for this same transcript. Defendant argues that the Snyder deposition is

irrelevant to this action because none ofthe plaintiffs have identified any employment decision in whichMichael

Pigors, David Rebholz, or Ted Weise participated. Defense counsel points out that one ofplaintiffs’ lawyers

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 199 Filed 08/23/05 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

in this matter is also counsel of record in the Satchell case. Plaintiffs contend that the deposition transcript is

relevant because Michael Pigors, one of the FedEx officers accused by Snyder of making racial slurs, is a

defendant in this case, and a decision maker in FedEx’s Western Region. 

The Court agrees with plaintiff that, in the absence ofany order by the Los Angeles Court sealing the

transcript, Snyder’s testimony is discoverable. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED. The

Court makes no ruling at this time about the admissibility of the transcript in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/23/05

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 199 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2