Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01800/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01800-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
Kenneth M. Gregory
Plaintiff
San Francisco General Hospital
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH M. GREGORY,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1800 PJH (BZ)

THIRD DISCOVERY ORDER

Pro Se Plaintiff Kenneth Gregory (“Gregory”) is an

African American male who was employed as a Food Services

worker at San Francisco General Hospital (“SFGH”) from

December 2006 until January 2007. Doc #1, Compl. ¶¶ 7 - 8. 

He filed a “pattern or practice” employment discrimination

claim against the City and County of San Francisco

(“defendant”). Id ¶ 14. 

The discovery dispute before the Court involves

interrogatories and document requests Gregory propounded on

January 23, 2010. Doc #30 at 50. Gregory sent 23

interrogatories and 12 document production requests, id at 

38 - 50, and defendant responded to each interrogatory and

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 54 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 6
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

request, id at 14 - 30. Gregory, not satisfied with

defendant’s responses, filed this motion to compel discovery

on June 4, 2010. Having reviewed the papers, the Court finds

no need for argument. For the reasons stated below, Gregory’s

motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Gregory’s moving papers state “[t]he information I would

like are a list of names of all persons employed as a Food

Service worker under Joey Reinares, Natalia Covacha and also

Connie Yin, Food Service Director. All employee who were

terminated from 01/01/2002 - 01/07/2007.” Id at 4. Gregory’s

moving papers also refer to interrogatories 9, 10, 13, 14, 17,

18, 20 and 21, but do not explain what Gregory finds

objectionable about defendant’s responses to these

interrogatories. Id. Additionally, Gregory’s moving papers

state that defendant “mention[ed] to me that information

regarding employees terminated and witnesses was sent to me

October 2009. I have not received any of this information.” 

Id. Finally, Gregory’s moving papers state that defendant’s

response to the production requests “was not good enough,” but

do not identify any specific problems. Id at 5. 

Pursuant to this Court’s order, Doc #38, the parties met

to resolve discovery issues on June 30, 2010. Doc #49 Exh. A. 

During the meeting, Gregory acknowledged receiving the initial

disclosures defendant sent to him in October 2009. Recording

of June 30, 2010 meet and confer. (Doc. #53). Additionally,

Gregory stated that he wished to withdraw his complaints about

interrogatories 9, 10, 17, 18, 20 and 21, leaving only

interrogatories 13 and 14 outstanding. Id. 

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 54 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Interrogatory 13 reads as follows: “[i]dentify each person who

has been employed by you as a salaried/hourly employee in San

Francisco General Hospital during the period from December 7,

2002 to the date of your response.” Doc #30 at 20. 

Interrogatory 13 also asks for each employee’s name, race,

employment position, date of hiring, date of termination and

reasons for termination. Id. During the June 30 meet and

confer, however, Gregory repeatedly stated that he did not

need defendant to provide this information for all of SFGH’s

employees, but only for the African Americans working in Food

Services who had been terminated from December 7, 2002 to

January 2007. Recording of June 30, 2010 meet and confer. 

In response to Gregory’s request, defendant provided

Gregory with a document specifying all African Americans

terminated from SFGH’s Food Services division from 2002 until

the present. Doc #49 Exh. D at 2 - 3. This document also

provides each employee’s termination date, reasons for

termination, job title and date of hire. Id. Gregory,

however, was not satisfied with defendant’s response, and in

moving papers and a letter to defendant requested (1)

information about the hiring and termination of SFGH Food

Services employees of other ethnicities, and (2) information

regarding the termination of African American employees

between 2000 and 2002. Doc #52 at 4; doc #49 Exh. C at 1; doc

#45 at 1. Additionally, Gregory asked defendant to specify a

single termination reason for each employee, doc #52 at 2 - 3,

and questioned the accuracy of the information defendant

provided, doc #45 at 1.

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 54 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Interrogatory 14 reads as follows: “Has the employment of

any employee (other than plaintiff) been terminated as a

result of a decision made by plaintiff’s supervisors? If your

answer is “yes,” please identify each such employee, stating

dates of hire and termination.” Doc #30 at 45. During the

June 30 meet and confer, Gregory clarified that he wanted a

list of the African American employees “fired under” three

supervisors: Joey Reinares, Natalia Covacha and Connie Yin. 

Recording of June 30, 2010 meet and confer. Gregory had

mentioned in his initial moving papers that he wanted a list

of all persons “employed as a Food Services worker under”

these three people. Doc #30 at 4.

In response, at the June 30 meet and confer defendant

stated that it could not produce a list of employees “fired

under” these three supervisors because employees were not

permanently assigned to work under specific supervisors. 

Recording of June 30, 2010 meet and confer. Instead,

defendant explained that employees work under various

supervisors and that an employee’s supervisors changed often. 

Id. Accordingly, defendant stated that it did not understand

what exactly Gregory wanted when he requested lists of

employees “fired under” or “employed under” certain

supervisors. Id. In papers filed after the June 30 meet and

confer, the parties only very briefly discussed interrogatory

14 or information relating to supervisors Joey Reinares,

Natalia Covacha and Connie Yin. 

At the June 30 meet and confer, Gregory requested two

pieces of information:

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 54 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 6
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

(1) The hiring date, termination date, job title and

reasons for termination for all African Americans

terminated by SFGH Food Services from 2002 until the

present.

(2) A list of African American employees “fired under”

three supervisors: Joey Reinares, Natalia Covacha

and Connie Yin. 

Since Gregory has received the first piece of information from

defendant, doc #49 Exh. D, to the extent that his motion

requests this information it is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Gregory has not received any information in response to

his request for the second piece of information. Moreover,

defendant has not made a showing that it would be an undue

burden to produce a list of which terminated African American

employees were supervised, at some point, by one of the three

supervisors referred to by Gregory: Joey Reinares, Natalia

Covacha and Connie Yin. Therefore, to this extent, Gregory’s

motion is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ORDERED by August 30,

2010 to respond to interrogatory 14 by (1) specifying which

African American employees terminated during the specified

period were supervised at some point by either Joey Reinares,

Natalia Covacha or Connie Yim, and (2) identifying the

supervisor or supervisors. 

To the extent that Gregory’s motion requests any

additional information, Gregory’s motion is DENIED. Gregory

made several additional requests for information after the

June 30 meet and confer, including requests for: (1)

information regarding non-African Americans employed by SFGH

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 54 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Food Services, (2) information about African Americans

employees terminated from 2000 to 2002 and (3) information

specifying a single termination reason for African American

employees terminated between 2002 and the present. These

additional requests were raised spontaneously, and

substantially modified earlier requests with which defendant

has complied. These additional requests are DENIED because

Gregory cannot expect the Court to force defendant to comply

with shifting, spontaenous information demands. To the extent

Gregory wishes to reopen discovery, his request needs to be

addressed to Judge Hamilton. 

Finally, insofar as Gregory’s motion questions the

accuracy of information defendant produced in discovery, his

motion is DENIED. A motion to compel discovery is not the

proper method for certifying the accuracy of information

received in discovery. This Order resolved Docket #30. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 13, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\GREGORY V. CITY & CTY S.F\DISC ORDER 3.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-01800-PJH Document 54 Filed 08/13/10 Page 6 of 6