Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-13/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

 This motion was filed with the Special Master and has not yet been e-filed. Plaintiffs’ counsel faxed

a copy of the motion to the Court. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to e-file this motion so it appears on the

docket.

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 Cases 04-0099 SI, 03-2659 SI and 03-

2878 SI

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

INTERVENE AND GRANTING

MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENA

This order addresses the Motion ofPlaintiffClass in Satchell et al., v. FedEx Corporation et al., to

Intervene Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24 (Docket # 338), the Motion of Intervenors to Quash Defendant’s

Deposition Subpoena of Richard Drogin (Docket # 340), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Defendant’s

Deposition Subpoena of Richard Drogin.1 The Court has reviewed the parties’ motions and FedEx’s

responses to these motions, and hereby enters the following order.

The Court GRANTS the motion to intervene, and GRANTS the motions to quash the deposition

subpoena of Richard Drogin. The Court concludes it would be improper for FedEx to take Mr. Drogin’s

deposition in Alvarado and White because he has not been designated as an expert in Alvarado or White,

he has been disclosed as an expert in Satchell, and fact discovery has closed in Alvarado and White. The

Court agrees with FedEx, however, that because the Alvarado and White plaintiffs have not disclosed Mr.

Drogin as an expert, they cannot use Mr. Drogin’s report in any fashion. Plaintiffs cannot seek to prevent

FedEx fromdeposing Mr. Drogin while at the same time using his report as a basis for their experts’ analysis.

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 346 Filed 12/23/05 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 346 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 2