Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06118/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06118-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abdul Benjamin
Plaintiff
Wiline Networks, Inc.
Defendant

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

ABDUL BENJAMIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILINE NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06118-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 62

Plaintiff Abdul Benjamin filed this case against Defendant Wiline Networks, Inc., alleging 

discrimination on the basis of race and religion. (Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1-1.) On March 22, 2019, 

the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's 

interrogatories. (Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 62.) Having reviewed the letter, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff's request for amended responses.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff worked as an account manager for Defendant for approximately four to six 

months. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 15; Discovery Letter at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that his direct supervisor, Greg 

Kopecky, would openly discriminate against him, giving Plaintiff accounts based on his race while 

reserving the best leads and opportunities to non-African-American account managers. (Compl. 

¶¶ 17-18.) Mr. Kopecky would also denigrate Muslims. (Compl. ¶ 21-22.) When Plaintiff 

complained of this behavior, he was allegedly terminated. (Compl. ¶ 23.)

As relevant to this discovery dispute, Plaintiff states that during its deposition, Defendant 

testified about Plaintiff's performance, the reasons for his termination, and that those reasons were 

developed during sales managers meetings while reviewing Plaintiff's performance. (Discovery 

Letter at 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff served interrogatories seeking information in support of that 

Case 4:17-cv-06118-KAW Document 67 Filed 04/01/19 Page 1 of 4
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

deposition testimony. Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7 sought the dates of the senior sales management 

meetings and their attendees, while Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 sought information on the 

discussions at those meetings regarding sales performance and activity. (Id. at 4.) Interrogatory 

Nos. 10 and 11 sought information related to verbal warnings given to other account executives 

during their first three months of employment. (Id.) Finally, Interrogatory No. 12 sought 

information of any sales made to accounts assigned to Plaintiff after Plaintiff's termination, 

Interrogatory No. 13 requested that Defendant identify Plaintiff's accounts located in the San 

Francisco Tenderloin District, and Interrogatory No. 14 asked that Defendant identify the account 

executive assigned to the Tenderloin accounts before Plaintiff. (Id. at 5.)

Defendant objected to each of the interrogatories as not being relevant, and asserted it did 

not have responsive information except as to Interrogatory No. 13 because there are no records of 

sales meetings or actions taken at sales meetings. (Discovery Letter at 1, 3.) With respect to 

Plaintiff's accounts in the Tenderloin, Defendant responded that Plaintiff was already given a 

print-out of every building Plaintiff was assigned to. (Id.) On February 19, 2019, Defendant's 

30(b)(6) witnesses allegedly testified about the Senior Sales Management Meetings, including 

their chronological order, discussions in those meetings, decisions made in those meetings, and 

action items that followed those meetings. (Id. at 2-3.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has 

the right to the discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery need not 

be admissible to be discoverable. Id. The court, however, "must limit the frequency or extent of 

discovery otherwise allowed" if "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, 

or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope 

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Furthermore, "[t]he court may, for good 

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

Case 4:17-cv-06118-KAW Document 67 Filed 04/01/19 Page 2 of 4
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

undue burden or expense," including by precluding discovery, by conditioning disclosure or 

discovery on specified terms, by preventing inquiry into certain matters, or by limiting the scope 

of discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). "Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on 

the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is 

required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Relevance

Defendant argues that the information sought is not relevant because Plaintiff's case is 

based on whether management "utter[ed] racial slurs and comments disparaging Plaintiff's Muslim 

religion such that Plaintiff was forced to quit his job." (Discovery Letter at 3.) Thus, Defendant 

appears to suggest that information is not discoverable unless it is related to harassing conduct. 

(Id. at 5.)

The Court disagrees. It appears that Defendant testified that Plaintiff's performance 

contributed to his termination, and those reasons were discussed during the sales manager 

meetings while reviewing Plaintiff's sales performance. (Discovery Letter at 1.) Thus, even if not 

related to harassment, such information may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Likewise, 

evidence regarding warnings given to other account executives may go to pretext. Finally, 

information about Plaintiff's accounts, including whether any sales were made to those accounts 

after his alleged termination, go directly to his allegations that he was given less favorable 

assignments and Defendant's defense that "Plaintiff was a terrible salesman" and that he was 

assigned some of the most expensive buildings in the Financial District (Id. at 4, 5.)

B. Availability of Evidence

Defendant also contends that the information is not available or has already been provided 

to Plaintiff. (Discovery Letter at 3, 5.)

First, as to the list of Plaintiff's accounts in the Tenderloin, Defendant argues it has already 

provided a list of all of Plaintiff's accounts. (Discovery Letter at 3.) In the interest of moving 

discovery forward, and because Defendant points to no burden of providing the information 

requested, the Court ORDERS Defendant to identify Plaintiff's accounts in the Tenderloin.

Case 4:17-cv-06118-KAW Document 67 Filed 04/01/19 Page 3 of 4
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

Second, as to the sales meetings or actions taken at sales meetings, Defendant contends 

there are no records because Defendant did not make minutes for these meetings. (Discovery 

Letter at 3.) Defendant does not dispute, however, that it has some information, as Defendant's 

30(b)(6) witnesses testified about the chronological order of specific senior staff sales 

management meetings, the discussions in those meetings, decisions made in those meetings, and 

action items that followed those meetings. (Discovery Letter at 2-3.) Although Defendant may 

not have formal records of those meetings, that is not to say that Defendant does not have any 

information about those meetings, sufficient to answer the interrogatories to the best of its 

abilities. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide any responsive information that it has.

Third, Defendant provides no explanation for why it would not have information as to 

verbal warnings given to other account executives, sales made to Plaintiff's accounts after Plaintiff 

was terminated, or account executives previously assigned to Plaintiff's accounts. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide any responsive information it has.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide amended responses 

to the interrogatories in dispute within 7 days of this order. Defendant may not object on 

relevancy grounds.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06118-KAW Document 67 Filed 04/01/19 Page 4 of 4