Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03942/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03942-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NICHOLAS SMITH and JENNIFER LYNN 

TAYLOR-SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN, a Delaware 

corporation, and Does 1 through 10,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-03942-EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 2

Re: Dkt. No. 38

This is an action for alleged disability discrimination under the California Fair

Employment & Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq. Defendant asserts federal 

jurisdiction based on diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff Nicholas Smith previously was 

employed by defendant Northrup Grumman as a welder, a position that defendant says was 

covered by a collective bargaining agreement that Northrup Grumman negotiated with the 

International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Local 93. Following a non-work 

related motorcycle accident on May 1, 2011, Smith was rendered a quadriplegic, could no longer 

perform his welder job, and received medical leave. Smith’s employment with defendant was 

terminated on May 2, 2013 when, defendant says, his medical leave expired. Plaintiff claims that 

defendant failed to participate in a good faith interactive process and failed to accommodate his 

disability by placing him in another position at the company.

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 43 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 5
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

At issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 2 is plaintiff’s Topic No. 10 for 

Northrup Grumman’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition testimony: “The cost to Defendant of 

benefits received by Nicholas Smith from Defendant.” Plaintiff argues that this information is 

relevant to his damages for the loss of benefits due to his termination. Defendant objects on the 

grounds that this information “is irrelevant and private” (DDJR No. 2 at 4).

1

 The matter is deemed 

suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the 

parties’ respective arguments, this court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s request for an 

order compelling defendant’s testimony and grants in part and denies in part defendant’s request 

for a protective order.

Preliminarily, this court observes that in DDJR No. 2, the parties appear to be talking past 

one another to a certain extent. As framed by plaintiff, this discovery dispute concerns only a

disagreement as to whether damages for lost benefits are to be measured by his out-of-pocket 

expenses for replacing them. Defendant, however, appears to object more broadly to testifying 

about its costs of providing the benefits; and, to the extent plaintiff seeks discovery about the value 

of the benefits he would have received but for his termination, defendant contends that those 

values are not actually “costs” incurred by Northrup Grumman. Neither side has adequately 

briefed the relevance of defendant’s costs of providing the benefits. As discussed below, the vast 

majority of defendant’s arguments are devoted to an issue re health/medical and life insurance 

benefits that is not disputed. And, plaintiff has not clearly articulated the relevance of defendant’s 

costs of providing benefits (as opposed to the value of the benefits he would have received had he 

not been terminated). Nor has he cited any authority supporting discovery of such information. 

Absent any such authority, this court will not require defendant to testify about such matters.

As noted above, the bulk of defendant’s arguments concern an issue as to which there is no 

controversy: The parties agree that under Ninth Circuit precedent cited by Northrup Grumman, 

“a plaintiff should be compensated for the loss of [medical and life insurance] benefits if the 

 

1 Defendant has not offered any argument or authority as to the claimed “private” nature of the 

information or why that should preclude plaintiff from obtaining discovery about it. So, this court 

addresses only defendant’s relevance objection.

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 43 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 5
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

plaintiff has purchased substitute insurance coverage or has incurred, uninsured, out-of-pocket 

medical expenses for which he or she would have been reimbursed under the employer’s insurance 

plan.” Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1517 (9th Cir. 1986); see also E.E.O.C. v. Farmer 

Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 902 (9th Cir. 1994) (applying Galindo in a Title VII employment 

discrimination case).2 In other words, damages for the loss of such benefits are based on a 

plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses to replace them. Smith therefore agrees that health/medical and 

life insurance benefits do not fall within the scope of Topic 10.

As for other types of benefits, Smith protests that his out-of-pocket expenses are not the 

correct measure, arguing that he cannot, for example, “buy” a replacement for earned vacation 

time. It is unclear precisely what universe of other benefits plaintiff received during his 

employment; but, he makes passing reference to vacation pay, sick time, overtime, and retirement 

or other deferred compensation benefits. To the extent defendant suggests that Galindo and 

Farmer Bros. support the conclusion that such other benefits are irrelevant for discovery purposes, 

that argument fails to convince. Indeed, in Galindo, the Ninth Circuit went on to state that the 

plaintiff “is, of course, entitled to any lost seniority pay, vacation pay, or any other fringe benefits 

that he would have actually received.” 793 F.2d at 1517-18. In Farmer Bros., the Ninth Circuit 

reversed the district court’s award of health and life insurance benefits and remanded with 

instructions that those lost benefits be calculated based on the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket costs. 31 

F.3d at 902. But, the Ninth Circuit otherwise “affirm[ed] the district court’s determination of 

[plaintiff]’s other fringe benefits and backpay award.” Id.; see also Su v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 

No. 12-cv-03743-JST, 2014 WL 3615582 at *5 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2014) (based on review of the 

underlying findings of fact and conclusions of law in Farmer Bros., concluding that the Ninth 

Circuit in Farmer Bros. “affirmed the award of ‘pension benefits . . . paid vacation days, holidays 

and sick leave,’ and affirmed that the awards could be calculated based on the amount the 

employer ‘paid monthly under the pertinent collective bargaining agreements for each 

 

2 Although plaintiff asserts only state law claims for relief, no one contests the applicability of the 

Ninth Circuit cases cited by defendant.

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 43 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

employee.’”).

Defendant nevertheless maintains that the value of earned vacation, overtime, or paid sick 

days are items that can be compensated through an award of back pay. Additionally, defendant 

contends that retirement and other deferred compensation is simply the amount of contributions 

plaintiff deferred or paid to trust accounts under the pertinent plans. Therefore, the value of these 

benefits, says defendant, are not “costs” incurred by Northrup Grumman. None of these 

arguments, however, demonstrate that the value of these benefits are irrelevant. Quite the 

opposite. And, the court finds that the value of these benefits does fall within the ambit of Topic 

No. 10.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s request for an order compelling testimony and 

defendant’s request for a protective order are granted in part and denied in part as follows: In 

response to Topic No. 10, defendant shall provide testimony about the value of benefits that 

plaintiff would have received but for his termination, except that defendant will not be required to 

testify about any health/medical or life insurance benefits. Absent any authority, defendant will 

not be required to testify about any other costs.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 43 Filed 08/07/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

5:13-cv-03942-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

George S. Duesdieker grgdr@yahoo.com, george@duesdieker.com

Leslie Holmes leslie@hulawyers.com

Michael A. Hoffman , III mhoffman@arenahoffman.com, aking@arenahoffman.com, 

blinsenbigler@arenahoffman.com

Ronald D. Arena rarena@arenahoffman.com, aking@arenahoffman.com, 

blinsenbigler@arenahoffman.com

Case 5:13-cv-03942-EJD Document 43 Filed 08/07/15 Page 5 of 5