Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00165-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:451 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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) Case No. 1:06-cv-0165-OWW-TAG

COMMISSION, )

) ORDER DENYING IN PART 

) AND GRANTING IN PART 

Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT KOVACEVICH “5” FARMS’

) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

Patricia Delgado, et al., )

) (Docs. 73, 74) 

Intervenors, ) 

)

v. )

)

KOVACEVICH “5” FARMS, )

A Partnership, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 13, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),

commenced this action on behalf of a class of women against defendant Kovacevich “5” Farms

(“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). The complaint alleges unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex,

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. (Id.). The original charging

parties were granted leave to intervene as of right, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a),

and filed a separate complaint. (Docs. 20, 26). The gist of the complaints filed by the EEOC and the

intervenors (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) was that their applications for employment with Defendant

were denied because they were women and/or that they were deterred from applying due to

Defendant’s reputation for not hiring females. (Docs. 1, 26). 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 23
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

By order dated September 18, 2006, the issues of liability and damage were bifurcated.

(Doc. 31). The bifurcation order reiterates the parties’ stipulation not to seek discovery regarding the

Plaintiffs’ immigration status or legal ability to work in this country during the liability phase of the

trial. (Id.). On October 5, the Court signed a stipulated protective order, pursuant to which the

parties agreed that any confidential information – including, inter alia, Social Security Numbers,

disclosed during the course of discovery, trial, or other case-related proceedings, would not be used

for any other purpose. (Doc. 36). The protective order further provided that this Court retained

jurisdiction to modify it for good cause and directed that all of the confidential materials would be

destroyed, with the exception of one archival copy that the EEOC would keep, upon complete

resolution of this action. (Id.). 

On April 9, 2007, Defendant received an email supplemental responses to the interrogatories

that are the subject of this motion, without a verification. On April 11, 2007, Defendant received an

email supplemental response to the request for production of documents, with an attached but

unsigned verification. On April 11, 2007, Defendant received another email transmitting various

additional documents from Defendant EEOC’s investigative file. On April 11, 2007, Defendant 

also received a signed verification dated March 9, 2007, purporting to verify supplemental responses

and second supplemental responses to its first set of interrogatories and/or a request for production of

documents. It is unclear which discovery request the verification applies to, because it appears to

verify a document prepared after March 9, 2007. 

Defendant filed a motion to compel discovery responses, which came on regularly for hearing

on May 7, 2007, before Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner. (Doc. 73). Ronald H. Barsamian and

Patrick S. Moody appeared on behalf of Defendant. Evangelina Hernandez appeared telephonically

on behalf of the EEOC. In the motion, joint statement, and oral arguments, Defendant contended

that the EEOC continuously refused to answer completely the interrogatories served upon it, or to

provide documents that Defendant had requested, without an adequate reason, which the EEOC

disputed. (Id.; Doc. 74). The Court granted Defendant’s motion and ordered the EEOC to provide

complete, verified responses to all of the interrogatories except number 2, which it took under

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 23
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 3

submission. The Court further ordered the EEOC to produce all requested documents and/or provide

a privilege log explaining the reason why specific documents were withheld. (Doc. 77). This is the

Court’s written order on the motion to compel discovery responses. (Doc. 73).

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION 

 A. Discovery overview

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair

contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United

States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987 (1958), and to narrow and clarify

the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947).

F.R.Civ.P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

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

the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and

the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. 

For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject

matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. 

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty

& Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990). 

B. Interrogatories

Functions of interrogatories include obtaining evidence, information which may lead to

evidence and admissions, and to narrow issues to be tried. United States v. West Virginia Pulp and

Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. 250, 252 (S.D. N.Y. 1964). The party answering interrogatories must furnish

“such information as is available to the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)

requires an interrogatory to be answered “fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in

which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the

interrogatory is not objectionable.” “The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 23
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 4

serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the

interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 

“Parties must provide true, explicit, responsive, complete, and candid answers to

interrogatories.” Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996). If a responding

party is unable to supply requested information, “the party may not simply refuse to answer, but must

state under oath that he is unable to provide the information and ‘set forth the efforts he used to

obtain the information.’” Hansel, 169 F.R.D. at 305 (quoting Milner v. National School of Health

Tech., 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1977)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 “is to be given a broad and liberal

interpretation in the interest of according to the parties the fullest knowledge of the facts and of

clarifying and narrowing the issues.” West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. at 252. 

“All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity. Any ground

not stated in a timely objection is waived . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The propounding party may

seek an order to compel further responses regarding “an objection to or other failure to answer an

interrogatory.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5); see, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(B).

Interrogatory No. 1:

“Identify each of the ten proposed class members who will be the focus of the liability stage

of the trial in this case pursuant to the Order Bifurcating Trial.”

The EEOC’s responses to this interrogatory ultimately identified ten class members, but also 

reserved the right to change its designation within 14 days of the District Court’s decision on

motions for class certification (temporal scope of the class) and for summary adjudication on the

temporal scope of claims. Since the date of those responses, the District Court has ruled on both

motions. 

Defendant is entitled to conduct meaningful, reliable discovery regarding the designated class

representatives to explore the individual claims of each of them. The Court concludes that the

EEOC has failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to

provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified answer to Interrogatory No. 1. The

Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 4 of 23
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 5

this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, 

and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each representative class member, within 30

calendar days. 

Interrogatory No. 2:

“For each person identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging Parties,

please provide each name, drivers’ license number with issuing jurisdiction and Social Security 

number used by each during the last ten years (September 1996 to present), and the inclusive dates of

such use.”

Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 2 asks the EEOC to provide the name, drivers’ license number

(and issuing jurisdiction), and Social Security number used by each of the ten class representatives

and the charging parties since September 1996 to the present. In November 2006, the EEOC refused

to answer the question, stating that the interrogatory was unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any

claims or defenses, not calculated to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence, an invasion of

privacy, harassing, and an improper inquiry into the Plaintiffs’ immigration status. In its

supplemental and first supplemental responses to interrogatories, the EEOC gave the same answer to

this interrogatory. On April 9, 2007, the EEOC, in its second supplemental response, in addition to

stating that Defendant was not entitled to inquire into Plaintiffs’ immigration status, contended that

Defendant’s alleged necessity for this information – that it was needed to investigate Plaintiffs’

backgrounds and work history to ascertain whether they were qualified for and/or deterred from

applying for a job – not only had was unpersuasive but also implicated immigration issues and,

therefore, the probative value of the data was far outweighed by its potential prejudicial effect. 

Defendant responded that it had no interest in Plaintiffs’ immigration status – only their identifying

information – which was required because Plaintiffs would not or, purportedly, could not provide

sufficient details concerning their prior work experience. The EEOC replied that, to the extent the

information is needed, it would only be relevant during the damages phase of the trial, adding that it

would provide a backdoor to eliciting Plaintiffs’ immigration status, which would have a “chilling

effect” on immigrants seeking legal recourse for violations of their rights. (See generally Joint

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 5 of 23
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

The cited cases, as do most opinions that address a defendant’s right to request similar information, 1

are presented in connection with motions for, or to modify, protective orders, as opposed to the instant case’s

motion to compel responses to discovery

6

Statement of Contentions Regarding Motion to Compel (“Joint Stmt.”), pp. 11-23).

Generally, the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts do not allow defendants in employmentdiscrimination actions to question plaintiffs directly about their immigration status or to seek the

disclosure of Social Security numbers or similar identifying information that could lead to the

discovery of the plaintiffs’ immigration status, even when a protective order has been entered and the

defendants purportedly have requested the information solely to obtain additional material relevant to

their defense. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004); Avila-Blum v. Casa de 1

Cambio Delgado, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 190 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Galaviz-Zamora v. Brady Farms, Inc., 230

F.R.D. 499 (W.D. Mich. 2005). In Nibco, the Circuit Court noted that information regarding

immigration status not only would “chill the plaintiffs’ willingness and ability to bring civil rights

claims.” 364 F.3d at 1064 (citation omitted). The Court added that all immigrants would be loathe

to report incidents of employment discrimination because any undocumented aliens might be

prosecuted and removed because of their illegal status, and documented immigrations likely would

fear retaliation or implicating family members and/or friends who were illegal aliens. Id. at 1064-65. 

Further, the presence of a protective order would not be able to provide adequate relief to an

immigrant who was either imprisoned and deported or retaliated against by the employer and, thus,

the disclosure of immigration status would not serve the purpose of Title VII; i.e., to eradicate and

deter the various bases of employment discrimination. Id. at 1064-66. Finally, this Circuit, and

various district court opinions, found that a plaintiff’s immigration status generally was irrelevant to

the issue of liability in most employment cases, and questions directed toward discovery of an

immigrant’s legal right to work in the United States were not only unduly burdensome, but

prejudicial. Id. at 1066-70 (Title VII); Avila-Blum, 236 F.R.D. at 191-92 (finding, in bifurcated Title

VII action, that immigration status was relevant only with respect to damages); Galaviz-Zamora, 230

F.R.D. at 502-03 (Fair Labor Standards Act). 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 6 of 23
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 7

Recognizing that, in an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff’s work history may be

relevant to the defense, especially, as in the instant case, where Defendant contends that they require 

experience in varying areas of pruning the agricultural product and there is some question as to

whether or not the “deterred” Plaintiffs actually were interested in the available positions, some

Courts have agreed to a compromise wherein Plaintiffs would provide affidavits detailing their past

work experience. See, e.g., Galaviz-Zamora, 230 F.R.D. at 502-03 (agreeing to the above

compromise but retaining jurisdiction to revisit the defendant’s request for plaintiffs’ Social Security

numbers, alien registration numbers, etc., if the affidavits did not provide sufficient information

regarding past work history). 

In the instant case, Defendant contends that it will use Plaintiffs’ Social Security and drivers’

license numbers solely to obtain information regarding their work histories. As the EEOC notes,

it is difficult to fathom how Defendant will be able to obtain the underlying employment history

absent Plaintiffs’ written consent. Moreover, many of the interrogatories that Defendant

propounded, and the EEOC has not answered completely as of today, request specific information

regarding, inter alia, the employment history, periods of disability, and experience of the class

representatives and the charging parties. (See Joint Stmt., Interrogatories 10 through 16, pp. 45-71). 

Because this Court orders the EEOC to provide detailed responses to these interrogatories,

Defendant should receive the work-related information that it hoped to obtain through Interrogatory

No. 2. If the EEOC does not provide full and complete answers to Interrogatories 10 through 16, the

Court will, upon motion, revisit whether to grant Defendant’s motion to compel responses to

Interrogatory No. 2.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to

Interrogatory No. 2, without prejudice. 

Interrogatory No. 3:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state each address where each person has resided for the last ten years (September 1996 to 

present), and the inclusive dates of each period of occupancy.” 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 7 of 23
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 8

In response to this interrogatory, the EEOC has added additional representative claimants

with some addresses, but not for the last ten years, and failed to provide a contemporaneous

verification. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a complete and verified answer to Interrogatory No. 3. 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections

to this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide an explicit, responsive, complete,

candid, and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative

class member, within 30 calendar days. The EEOC is to provide each known address and dates of

residence for the past ten (10) years, and is to specifically identify any requested information which it

does not know and set forth the efforts used to obtain the information.

Interrogatory No. 4:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state the highest level of education reached by each person and each educational institution 

attended, including the inclusive dates of each period of attendance an at an educational institution.” 

The responses to Interrogatory No. 4 failed to identify the educational institutions attended

and the dates of attendance, and did not include a contemporaneous verification. The Court

concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by

failing to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory

are overruled. The EEOC is to provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified

answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within

30 calendar days. The EEOC is to specifically identify any requested information which it does not

know and set forth the efforts used to obtain the information.

Interrogatory No. 5: 

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether each has ever been convicted of a felony. If the answer is yes, please provide

the charge offense(s), the conviction offense(s), the adjudicating court, the date of conviction, the

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 8 of 23
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 9

date of sentencing, and the sentence imposed.” 

In response to Interrogatory No. 5, the EEOC denied that any charging party and

representative class member has been convicted of a felony, but failed to verify its response. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court

GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this

interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this

interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar

days. 

Interrogatory No. 6:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether each has been incarcerated at any time for any reason during the last ten years

(September 1996 to present), and provide the inclusive dates of such incarceration and the location

of such incarceration.” 

In response to Interrogatory No. 6, the EEOC denied that any charging party and

representative class member has been incarcerated, but failed to verify its response. Accordingly, the

Court concludes the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33

by failing to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS

Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory

are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory

regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days.

Interrogatory No. 7:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether each has any family relationship to any present or ast employee of Kovacevich

“5” Farms. For each who answers yes, provide the name of such individual and the degree of

relation to such person.”

The EEOC answered Interrogatory No. 7 without a contemporaneous verification. 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 9 of 23
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 10

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court

GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this

interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this

interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar

days. 

Interrogatory No. 8:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether they have ever worked for Kovacevich “5” Farms, and if so, the inclusive dates

of such employment (including the dates of any period of layoff or absence), and the reason for any

period of separation from such employment.”

The response to Interrogatory No. 8 included complete answers as to some representative

class members, i.e., Ms. Miriam Delgado, and incomplete or vague answers as to others, i.e., 

Ms. Patricia Delgado and Ms. Rachel Ramirez. The answers were incomplete and vague because

they failed to specify the dates or seasons of employment, layoff, or absence. In addition, no

contemporaneous verification was provided. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the EEOC failed

to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a complete

and verified answer to this interrogatory. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The 

objections to this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified

answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within

30 calendar days. The EEOC is to provide specific seasons and/or time periods worked, as well as

periods of layoff or absence, and is to specifically identify any information which it does not know

and set forth the efforts used to obtain such information.

Interrogatory No. 9:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether they have ever applied for work at Kovacevich “5” Farms. If so, identify the

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 10 of 23
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 11

date of each application, the manner in which the application was made, and the person to whom the

application was made.”

The response to Interrogatory No. 9 indicated that Ms. Cazarez, Ms. Salcido, and

Ms. Casas applied for employment on various occasions between 1998 to 2002, but described only

one incident in early 1998, and the response as to other intervenors failed to include the date,

manner, or circumstance of the subject applications. In addition, the answers were not verified

when made. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified

answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this

interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide an

explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each

charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days, and is to specifically

identify any information which it does not know and set forth the efforts used to obtain such

information. 

Interrogatory No. 10:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state which position or positions were sought at the time of each application for work at 

Kovacevich “5” Farms, and describe in detail each person’s qualifications for each position sought.” 

In response to Interrogatory No. 10, the EEOC asserts there are no applicable qualifications

and thus none were included. Defendant is entitled to discover whether the applicants were qualified

to do the work sought, which includes whether and to what extent they were trained and/or

experienced to do the work sought. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its

discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide an explicit, responsive,

complete, candid, and verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion

to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. The

EEOC is to provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified answer to this

interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 11 of 23
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 12

days, is to specifically identify any information which it does not know, and set forth the efforts used

to obtain such information. 

Interrogatory No. 11:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state the date of each application for employment with any employer in the last ten years

(September 1996 to present), the name and address of the employer, the position sought, the

compensation sought, and describe in detail all qualifications for the position sought.” 

The response to Interrogatory No. 11 failed to provide identifying information for any 

employer other than Defendant, with respect to Ms. Flor Vera, Ms. Patricia Delgado, and

Ms. Miriam Delgado, and failed to provide a contemporaneous verification. The Court concludes

that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to

provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendants’

motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. 

The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging

party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days, is to specifically identify any

information which it does not know, and set forth the efforts used to obtain such information.

Interrogatory No. 12:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, describe all efforts made by each to obtain work in the last ten years (September 1996 to

present), and identify all documents produced, created, or obtained in the course of such efforts.” 

The response to Interrogatory No. 12 provided no information regarding the representative

class members. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a complete answer to this interrogatory. The Court

GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this

interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and

verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member,

within 30 calendar days, is to specifically identify any information which it does not know, and set

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 12 of 23
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 13

forth the efforts used to obtain such information. 

Interrogatory No. 13:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, list each employer for whom each individual has performed work for the last ten years

(September 1996 to present). Include the name and location of the employer, inclusive dates in each

position, the job classification held, the rate(s) of pay during the period of employment, all earnings,

and the reason that the employment ended.” 

The response to Interrogatory No. 13 failed to provide the total earnings for each job for

Ms. Delia Casas, failed to provide the employer name(s) or locations or the earnings for

Ms. Miriam Delgado, failed to provide the total earnings for Ms. Cazarez, failed to provide the dates

or seasons of employment, employer name(s), or earnings information for Ms. Patricia Delgado,

failed to provide the compensation, total earnings, or dates or seasons of employment for Ms. Terri

Salcido, failed to provide the dates or seasons of employment, employer name(s), or earnings

information for Ms. Flor Rivera, and failed to provide a contemporaneous verification. 

The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory. The

court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to

this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this

interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar

days. In providing such an answer, the EEOC is to respond to each category of information sought in

the interrogatory, specifically identify any information which it does not know, and set forth the

efforts used to obtain such information. 

Interrogatory No. 14:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether she had been self-employed at any time in the last ten years (September 1996

to present). If yes, then provide the dates of any such self-employment and the nature of the

activities performed, and all earnings for each period of self-employment.”

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 13 of 23
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 14

The response to Interrogatory No 14 did not include a contemporaneous verification. The

Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P.

33 by failing to provide a verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s

motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. 

The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging

party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days. 

Interrogatory No. 15:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, identify any period of unemployment and/or disability in the last ten years (September 1996

to present), the reason for such unemployment, and whether the person filed a claim for

Unemployment Insurance Benefits, State Disability Insurance Benefits, Workers’ Compensation 

Benefits, and any other state or private benefit related to such period of unemployment and/or

disability.” 

The EEOC did not answer Interrogatory No. 15, but indicated that it is in the process of

doing so. The Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to comply with its discovery obligations

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide an explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified

answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer to this

interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide an

explicit, responsive, complete, candid, and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each

charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days, is to specifically identify

any information which it does not know, and set forth the efforts used to obtain such information. 

Interrogatory No. 16:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state whether she claims she was deterred from applying for work at Kovacevich “5” Farms,

and if so, state all facts that support such deterrence, including but not limited to the date of such

deterrence, and identify any documents related to such deterrence.” 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 14 of 23
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 15

In response to Interrogatory No. 16, the EEOC provided a collective group response, but

failed to provide a detailed response as to each charging party and representative class member, and

it failed to provide a contemporaneous verification. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to

comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide an explicit,

responsive, complete, and verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendants’

motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. 

The EEOC is to provide an explicit, responsive, complete and verified answer to this interrogatory

regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days, is to

specifically identify any information which it does not know, and set forth the efforts used to obtain

such information. 

Interrogatory No. 17:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, describe in detail all methods used to learn of job openings at Kovacevich “5” Farms.” 

The response to Interrogatory No. 17 did not include a contemporaneous verification. The

Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P.

33 by failing to provide a verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s

motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. 

The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory regarding each charging

party and representative class member, within 30 calendar days. 

Interrogatory No. 18:

“State the percentage of the Kovacevich “5” Farms workforce that You believe should be

female, and state all facts supporting this percentage.” 

The EEOC did not answer Interrogatory No. 18, and objected that it was propounded

prematurely, i.e. before expert disclosures are made. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to

comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a candid and

verified answer to this interrogatory. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel an answer

to this interrogatory. The objections to this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 15 of 23
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 16

candid and verified answer to this interrogatory, providing its best estimate at this time, within 30

calendar days.

Interrogatory No. 19:

“For each person identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 1 and for the Charging

Parties, state any and all facts which You assert support Your allegation that any Defendant violated

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including a description of each alleged violation and the

specific dates of those violations.”

In its initial response to Interrogatory No. 19, the EEOC failed to provide detailed facts.

However, its April 2007 supplemental response provided some specific facts, but did not appear to

be verified. The Court concludes that the EEOC failed to comply with its discovery obligations under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by failing to provide a complete and verified answer to this interrogatory. The

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory. The objections to

this interrogatory are overruled. The EEOC is to provide a complete and verified answer to this

interrogatory regarding each charging party and representative class member, within 30 calendar

days, is to specifically identify any information which it does not know, and set forth the efforts used

to obtain such information.

C. Requests for Production of Documents

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) permits a requesting party to ask for documents “which are in the

possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)

requires a written response to a request for production to “state, with respect to each item or

category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is

objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated.” A party is obligated to

produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other things which are in its

“possession, custody or control” on the date specified in the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); Norman

Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983). The

propounding party may seek an order for further disclosure regarding “any objection to or other

failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection requested.”

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 16 of 23
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 17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Failure to respond to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives all

objections, including privilege and work product, absent an extension of time to respond or a

showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(4), Richmark Corp. V. Timber Falling Consultants,

959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).

Request for Production of Documents No. 1:

“Produce all Documents relevant to any claims by any class members against the Defendant

that were not produced as part of the Initial Disclosure required by FRCP 26.” 

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART, Defendant’s motion to compel this

request, and overrules in part the objections to this request, as follows: The EEOC is to produce all

responsive documents, except those which it contends are not subject to disclosure under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000(e)(5)(b), within 30 calendar days. The EEOC shall identify any documents which are not

produced on a new privilege log. If Defendant feels that any documents which are not produced are

not subject to 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(5)(b), Defendant may file another motion to compel. The EEOC

shall provide a new single comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of

the response, and shall reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along

with any additional documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 2:

“Produce all Documents pertaining to or related to the investigation of EEOC Charge

numbers 375-2004-00158 (Patricia Delgado); 375-2004-00159 (Myriam Cazares); 375-2004-00160

(Flor Rivera); 375-2004-00161 (Miriam Delgado); 375-2004-00162 (Terri Salcido); 375-2004-

00163 (Delia Casas).”

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART, Defendant’s motion to compel with 

this request, and overrules in part the objections to this request, as follows: the EEOC is to produce

all responsive documents, except those which it contends are not subject to disclosure under 

42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(5)(b), within 30 calendar days. The EEOC shall identify any documents which

are not produced on a new privilege log. If Defendant feels that any documents which are not

produced are not subject to 42 USC § 2000(e)(5)(b), Defendant may file another motion to compel

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 17 of 23
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 18

discovery. The EEOC shall provide a new single comprehensive response to this request, including

a new verification of the response, and shall reproduce any documents which may have been

produced previously, along with any additional documents that should be produced.

Request for Production of Documents No. 3:

“Produce all Documents pertaining to the Charging Parties’ employment with Kovacevich 

“5” Farms.” 

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion to compel this

request. The objections to this request are sustained; however an updated and comprehensive 

privilege log and corresponding of produced documents must be provided. Accordingly, except for

such documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, work-product, or would result in the

disclosure of governmental deliberative process, the EEOC is to produce all responsive documents,

along with a list of all documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no

documents to be produced, Plaintiff is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. Plaintiff shall

provide a new single comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the

response, and shall reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with

any additional documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 4:

“Produce all Documents pertaining to employment with Kovacevich “5” Farms” for the ten

class members who will be the focus of the liability phase of this litigation.” 

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion to compel this

request. The work-product, attorney-client privilege, and governmental deliberative process

objections are sustained; all other objections are overruled. Accordingly, except for such documents

that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, work-product, or would result in the disclosure of

governmental deliberative process, the EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a

list of all documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be

produced, the EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new

single comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 18 of 23
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 19

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced.

Request for Production of Documents No. 5:

“Produce all Documents pertaining to the Charging parties’ applications for employment at

Kovacevich “5” Farms within the last ten years (September 1996 to present).” 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 6:

“Produce all Documents pertaining to applications for employment at Kovacevich “5” Farms

within the past ten years (September 1996 to present) by the ten class members who will be the focus

of the liability phase of this litigation.” 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 7:

“Produce all Documents pertaining to the Charging Parties’ applications for employment

with any employer within the past ten years (September 1996 to present), including but not limited to

job applications, job offers and/or denials, or any other documents.” 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 19 of 23
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 20

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced.

Request for Production of Documents No. 8:

“Produce all documents pertaining to applications for employment with any employer within

the past ten years (September 1996 to present) by the ten class members who will be the focus of the

liability phase of this litigation, including but not limited to job applications, job offers and/or

denials, or any other documents.” 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 9:

“Produce all documents pertaining to applications for employment with any employer within

the past ten years (September 1996 to present) for each of the Charging Parties, including but not

limited to employee handbooks, job descriptions, performance evaluations, disciplinary records,

termination or layoff notices, or any other documents received or provided in the course of

employment.” 

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s’s motion to compel

this request. The Court sustains the objections on the grounds that the request is unduly overboard

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 20 of 23
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 21

and likely irrelevant as to “employee handbooks” and “any other documents received or provided in

the course of employment.” As to the remainder of the documents requested, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to compel, and overrules the remaining objections. The EEOC is to produce all

responsive documents, along with a list of all documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If

there are no documents to be produced, the EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. 

The EEOC shall provide a new single comprehensive response to this request, including a new

verification of the response, and shall reproduce any documents which may have been produced

previously, along with any additional documents that should be produced.

Request for Production of Documents No. 10:

“Produce all documents pertaining to any employment with any employer during the last ten

years (September 1996 to present) for each of the ten class members who will be the focus of the

liability phase of this litigation, including but not limited to employee handbooks, job descriptions,

performance evaluations, disciplinary records, termination or layoff notices, or any other documents

received or provided in the course of employment.” 

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion to compel this 

request. The Court sustains the objections on the grounds that the request is unduly overboard and

likely irrelevant as to “employee handbooks” and “any other documents received or provided in the

course of employment.” As to the remainder of the documents requested, the Court GRANTS

Defendant’s motion to compel, and overrules the remaining objections. The EEOC is to produce all

responsive documents, along with a list of all documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If

there are no documents to be produced, the EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. 

The EEOC shall provide a new single comprehensive response to this request, including a new

verification of the response, and shall reproduce any documents which may have been produced

previously, along with any additional documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 11:

“Produce all W-2 and/or IRS 1099 forms for each of the Charging Parties for the last ten

years (September 1996 to present).”

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 21 of 23
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 22

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced.

Request for Production of Documents No. 12:

“Produce all W-2 and/or IRS 1099 forms for each of the ten class members who will be the

focus of the liability phase of this litigation for the last ten years (September 1996 to present).” 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 14:

“Produce all documents pertaining to the qualifications of each of the ten class members who

will be the focus of the liability phase of this litigation to work at Kovacevich 5” Farms.”

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced. 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 22 of 23
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 23

Request for Production of Documents No. 15:

“Produce all documents pertaining to each period of unemployment and/or disability for each

of the Charging Parties within the last ten years (September 1996 to present).” 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced. 

Request for Production of Documents No. 16:

“Produce all documents pertaining to each period of unemployment and/or disability for each

of the ten class members who will be the focus of the liability phase of this litigation within the last

ten years (September 1996 to present).” 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel this request. The objections to this

request are overruled. The EEOC is to produce all responsive documents, along with a list of all

documents being produced, within 30 calendar days. If there are no documents to be produced, the

EEOC is to clearly and unambiguously state that fact. The EEOC shall provide a new single

comprehensive response to this request, including a new verification of the response, and shall

reproduce any documents which may have been produced previously, along with any additional

documents that should be produced.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-OWW -TAG Document 79 Filed 06/04/07 Page 23 of 23