Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00472/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00472-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

DEAN KIM,

Plaintiff,

v.

HANLEES SEVEN, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00472-JSW (RMI)

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 75

Currently pending before the court is a discovery dispute presented by way of a Joint 

Letter Brief (dkt. 75). Having conducted a hearing on May 14, 2019, and having considered the 

arguments and evidence submitted, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. By May 28, 2019, Defendant shall produce un-redacted versions of all documents that had 

previously been redacted. Defendant can continue to redact personal identifying 

information such as social security numbers, home addresses, and personal contact 

information.

2. By May 28, 2019, Defendant shall produce all communications regarding Plaintiff, 

including emails. To the extent Defendant cannot locate any further responsive 

communications regarding Plaintiff, Defendant shall submit a sworn declaration detailing 

its search efforts by May 28, 2019.

3. By May 28, 2019, Defendant shall produce all documents regarding Plaintiff’s 

employment, including but not limited to all materials in Plaintiff’s employee file. To the 

extent Defendant cannot locate any further responsive documents regarding Plaintiff’s 

employment, Defendant shall submit a sworn declaration detailing its search efforts by 

Case 4:18-cv-00472-JSW Document 89 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 3
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

May 28, 2019.

4. By June 13, 2019, Defendant shall produce all documents regarding Plaintiff’s commission 

calculations for all cars Plaintiff sold while employed at Defendant.

5. Plaintiff also “requests that Defendant produce an inventory of all commission calculations 

and supporting documents related to all cars sold by Plaintiff from January 1, 2017 to April 

30, 2017.” Joint Letter (dkt. 75) at 3. Such an inventory does not exist and would need to 

be created by Defendant. Previously the District Judge ordered (dkt. 65 at 21-22) 

Defendant to provide Plaintiff all documents regarding Plaintiff’s commission calculations. 

Defendant was instructed to list any documents that were not available. With regard to any 

previously produced document, Defendant was instructed to identify such documents by 

Bates numbers “so that Mr. Kim could readily find those [documents] in his discovery.” Id. 

at 22. In response, Defendant filed an inventory of documents (dkt. 58), which went well 

beyond the District Judge’s instructions and included not only Bates numbers, but tables 

and columns which categorized the sales, identified the dollar amounts, and specified 

which documents substantiated costs for which items. Defendant purportedly did so 

because Plaintiff was acting pro se and because such a list would clarify previous 

document production. But that inventory only related to the twenty car sales Plaintiff had 

presented to the court at the time of the hearing. While there is agreement among the 

parties that Defendant will now provide documents for all commission calculations for all 

of Plaintiff’s car sales, Plaintiff requests that Defendant now create another inventory for 

the car sales documents not previously produced. The court finds that the need for such an 

inventory no longer exists. The District Judge’s instruction regarding the creation of a list 

by Defendant was needed so that Plaintiff, who was acting pro se, could distinguish 

between the newly produced documents, the previously produced documents, and any 

documents identified as unavailable. This new document production simply requires 

Defendant to produce documents not previously given. To the extent there might be some 

overlap or duplication in the production, the court is confident counsel for Plaintiff will be 

able to sort it out. The court finds that compelling Defendant to create and produce a 

Case 4:18-cv-00472-JSW Document 89 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

second inventory would be unduly burdensome and unwarranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

request for the creation and production of an inventory is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2019

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-00472-JSW Document 89 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 3