Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02873/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02873-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT DOVE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02873 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

The Court has received the parties’ joint letter brief dated March 6, 2006, outlining their

discovery dispute regarding Bayer’s objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of

Documents, Set Two, Request No. 1, requesting the complete personnel files of all persons

promoted to, hired into or otherwise placed in the position of Maintenance Mechanic B at

Defendant’s facilities located at Berkeley, California during the stipulated time period from

January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2003. Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court

has determined that a hearing on this dispute is unnecessary.

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information for

purposes of discovery is information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th

Cir. 2005) (internal quotes and citation omitted). 

Case 3:05-cv-02873-JSW Document 19 Filed 03/07/06 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

The Court finds the personnel files to be relevant and therefore overrules Defendant’s

objection. However, because the personnel files may contain highly personal information,

Defendant may produce the records under either a stipulated protective order or with the

identifying personal information redacted. The Court will review a stipulated protective order

expeditiously should the parties elect to submit such a proposal. In addition, Plaintiff’s

representation that he indicated by letter to Defendant’s counsel dated February 13, 2006 a

partial list of those persons known to employed in HVAC between March 2001 and August

2002 does not constitute a new request. Defendant has the burden of identifying and producing

those documents responsive to the request, within the stipulated time period. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02873-JSW Document 19 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2