Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06794/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06794-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Golden State Warriors, LLC
Defendant
Nicholas M. Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

NICHOLAS M. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06794-SI 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

NO. 2 AND 3

Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 43

Having reviewed the parties’ second and third discovery dispute letters the Court hereby 

orders as follows: 

Joint Discovery Dispute Letter No. 2, docket number 42:

Plaintiff RFP Set 1 Nos. 14 & 83, Set 2 Nos. 84-92: Plaintiff seeks (1) commission 

spreadsheets, (2) communications between defendant and salespeople regarding arena fees, and (3) 

wage statements not previously produced. See Dkt. No. 42 at 1. In response, Defendant argues (a) 

plaintiff has the “primary evidence” he needs with regards to commissions and arena fees, (b) that 

because the commission spreadsheets are not maintained in one area, searching for them without 

limitation is unduly burdensome, and (c) that the issue is moot because defendant produced over six 

hundred such spreadsheets and related emails. Plaintiff is entitled to the materials. Accordingly,

defendant shall either (1) confirm by January 24, 2020 that all commission spreadsheets have been 

produced or (2) produce all outstanding commission spreadsheets by February 7, 202. 

Mr. Beaven’s Notes: The Court understands the issue regarding Mr. Beaven’s notes is now 

moot. 

Case 3:18-cv-06794-SI Document 45 Filed 01/21/20 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

Plaintiff’s RFP Set 1 No. 81 and SROG Set 1 Nos 8-11: If this dispute is still active, by 

January 27, 2020, defendant shall either (1) serve a declaration in lieu of producing the wage 

statements or (2) produce the outstanding wage statements. Dkt. No. 42

Plaintiff’s SROGS Set 2 No. 16: Plaintiff seeks the contact information for all of 

defendants’ salespeople – approximately 43 individuals. Defendant argues it should not have to 

produce this information because the salespeople are not witnesses, their contact information is not 

relevant, and the salespeople have a right to privacy. The Court disagrees. Defendant shall produce 

the contact information for its salespeople on or before January 27, 2020. If the defendant is 

concerned about privacy it may produce the contact information subject to the parties’ protective 

order. 

Subpoena of Plaintiff’s Medical Records: The Court agrees with defendant. Plaintiff 

alleges his employment with defendant caused physical and mental injuries and therefore defendant 

is entitled to discovery (1) on the entire time period plaintiff worked for defendant and (2) on 

plaintiff’s mental disability. Plaintiff has indeed placed his mental disability at issue by bringing a 

claim for disability discrimination based on mental disabilities. Plaintiff shall produce any additional 

documents necessary on or before January 27, 2020. 

Joint Discovery Dispute Letter No. 3, docket number 43:

Defendant argues plaintiff has failed to respond to any of the 37 document requests 

defendant propounded. Defendant specifically calls out document request numbers 1, 23, 24, 27, 

30, 32, 33, and 34 as requests for which it has not received any documents. Plaintiff argues he has 

produced all appropriate documents in response to the requests listed above. Specifically, plaintiff 

states: (a) he has produced all documents responsive to requests 1, 23, 24, and 27; (b) has no 

documents in his possession responsive to request number 30; (c) has produced all appropriate 

documents in response to request number 32, except for unemployment benefit documents1; and (d) 

has produced all documents in response to request 33 and 34 but limited his response to only those 

 

1 The Court agrees with plaintiff that this limitation is appropriate. 

Case 3:18-cv-06794-SI Document 45 Filed 01/21/20 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

relating to disabilities and emotional distress as alleged in the complaint.2 However, plaintiff is 

silent with respect to the document requests not specifically listed by defendant. On or before 

January 27, 2020, plaintiff shall either certify he has produced all appropriate documents in response 

to all of defendants’ requests or produce the outstanding documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

2 See section above re “Subpoena of Medical Records” for the Court’s analysis on this 

point. 

Case 3:18-cv-06794-SI Document 45 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3