Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209-19/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
College of Health & Human Services, San Francisco State University
Defendant
Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

ORDER RE (1) DEFENDANT’S

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ORDER

EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE;

AND (2) PLAINTIFF’S “APPEAL” OF

JUDGE CHEN’S ORDER OF OCTOBER

31, 2006, AND MOTION THAT

DEFENDANTS BE REQUIRED TO

PRODUCE THE PERSONNEL FILES

AND RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

DISCOVERY

(Docket Nos. 111, 123)

Both the University and Ms. Keller-McIntyre have objected to this Court’s order of October

31, 2006, in which it granted Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s request for an extension of the discovery

deadline. Judge Chesney referred the objections to the undersigned for resolution. Having reviewed

the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby rules as follows.

I. DISCUSSION

A. University’s Objections

The University makes, in essence, two objections. First, it asks that the order be modified so

that Ms. Keller-McIntyre may designate only five similarly situated employees whom she believes

received better treatment. Second, it asks that, if any records are to be produced, they should first be

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 127 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 6
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

submitted to the Court for in camera review to determine whether the records actually involve

similarly situated employees. 

The Court finds that the first modification sought by the University is warranted. Indeed, the

Court’s order of October 31 implied that the five employees that Ms. Keller-McIntyre could

designate were to be similarly situated employees. See Order of 10/31/06, at 2 (noting that,

presumably, Ms. Keller-McIntyre wanted to examine the personnel records of “the employees

similarly situated to her who were treated more favorably to see whether they were deserving of the

more favorable treatment”).

However, the second modification sought by the University is not justified. First, the Court

rejects the University’s argument that a similarly situated employee is limited to an employee who

had the same supervisor, was subject to the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct. 

“[S]imilarly situated does not require that the employees be identically situated. The employees

need not necessarily have the same supervisor, be subject to the same standards, and engage in the

same conduct. The relevance of such factors depends on the circumstances and nature of the case. 

The critical question is whether the plaintiff and the other employee are similarly situated in ‘all

material respects.’” Bowden v. Potter, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (emphasis in

original). “The issue of similarly situated status is . . . fact specific and defies a mechanical or

formulaic approach.” Id. 

Second, the question of whether an employee is similarly situated is ordinarily a question of

fact for the jury. See id.; see also George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“‘Whether

two employees are similarly situated ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury.’”); Lunini v.

Grayeb, 395 F.3d 761, 770 n.6 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[A]s a general matter, whether individuals are

similarly situated is a factual question for the jury.”); Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368,

379 (2d Cir. 2003) (stating that the question of whether an employee is similarly situated to the

plaintiff is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury). If the Court were to adopt the University’s

proposal, then it would be preempting the jury’s role as factfinder. The privacy rights of University

employees should, as a general matter, be adequately protected by (1) a protective order and (2) this

order which limits Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s designation of employees to those whom she believes are

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 127 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 6
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

1

 Of course, this does not bar Ms. Keller-McIntyre from obtaining their personnel records if they

are any of the decisionmakers who allegedly discriminated against her (as specified by the October 31

order).

3

similarly situated. If the University believes that one of the employees designated by Ms. KellerMcIntyre is so outside the bounds of who could be similarly situated (e.g., no reasonable jury could

find the employee to be similarly situated), then it may move for a protective order. Of course,

before seeking such recourse, the University should meet and confer with Ms. Keller-McIntyre to

discuss, inter alia, why she believes the employee(s) to be similarly situated and why the University

believes otherwise. If in camera review is needed to resolve any such dispute, the Court may

employ such review at that time.

As to the current designation by Ms. Keller-McIntyre of employees who were treated more

favorably (i.e., of Mr. Katz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Davis, Mr. Dziadur, and Mr. Taylor), the Court shall not

order the University to comply because the Court is now modifying its October 31 order.1

 See page

5, infra. Ms. Keller-McIntyre is forewarned that, in designating the five similarly situated

employees, she must be prepared to explain why they are similarly situated and be prepared to

articulate the criteria by which that similarity is established.

B. Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s Objections

Ms. Keller-McIntyre makes several objections in her “appeal.” 

First, she argues that the University should be compelled to produce personnel records

without any limitation as to time. At a minimum, she contends, the University should produce

personnel records within the last ten (10) years because her “claim involves 10 years of treatment by

defendant.” Pl.’s “Appeal” at 1. The Court rejects Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s contention that records

should be produced without any limitation as to time. Originally, she asked for documents within

the past five (5) years only. Moreover, the relevance of documents that could be a decade old is

marginal at best. As for Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s contention that records within the past ten (10) years

should still be produced, the Court disagrees. Again, originally, Ms. Keller-McIntyre limited her

request to the past five (5) years. Furthermore, only that conduct by the University and its

employees that falls within the statute of limitations can be the basis of Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 127 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 6
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

 Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s brief actually lists fourteen individuals but three of the individuals are

listed twice (i.e., Jonathan Davis, Lucas Ford, and Richard Dziadur).

4

discrimination claims. Records from the past three (3) years should be sufficient for Ms. KellerMcIntyre to move forward with her claims.

Second, Ms. Keller-McIntyre asserts that she needs the personnel files of eleven University

employees2

 in order to show: (1) that certain employees were treated more favorably (e.g., because

they received promotions when their work was “less than or simply equal to” hers or because they

received “lesser evaluations” than she did but “were not stripped of responsible work duties”); and

(2) that certain employees who are supervisors discriminated against other employees on the basis of

sex, age, or disability. Pl.’s “Appeal” at 2. Ms. Keller-McIntyre does not explain which University

employee fits into which category. Nor does she explain why the Court’s order of October 31

precludes her from obtaining the personnel files of these employees. In fact, the Court notes that the

October 31 order permits Ms. Keller-McIntyre to obtain the personnel files of all decisionmakers

who allegedly discriminated against her on the basis of, e.g., age, gender, and disability. 

However, the October 31 order does specify that Ms. Keller-McIntyre may obtain the

personnel files of only five employees who were treated more favorably (as modified infra, five

similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably). Ms. Keller-McIntyre implies that

five is not sufficient because there are both employees who were treated more favorably by

promotion and employees who were treated more favorably by failure to “demote.” The Court

concludes that the balance it struck in permitting Ms. Keller-McIntyre to take the depositions of five

similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably is fair and adequate. Ms. KellerMcIntyre’s need for additional depositions of comparators must be balanced against the burden upon

the University and the privacy interests of employees whose files would be disclosed.

Finally, Ms. Keller-McIntyre argues that the Court should order the University to respond to

written discovery that she propounded on October 10, 2006. This Court previously denied this

request on November 2, 2006, see Docket No. 107, and Judge Chesney affirmed this Court’s ruling

on November 14, 2006. See Docket No. 120. Accordingly, this objection by Ms. Keller-McIntyre is

meritless. Both this Court and Judge Chesney have already ruled on the request.

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 127 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court concludes that its order of October 31 shall be modified only as

follows: The Court shall not enforce the current designation by Ms. Keller-McIntyre of employees

who were treated more favorably (i.e., of Mr. Katz, Mr. Ford, Mr. Davis, Mr. Dziadur, and Mr.

Taylor). Instead, within three (3) court days of this order, Ms. Keller-McIntyre shall identify for the

University no more than five (5) similarly situated employees who were allegedly treated more

favorably than her. Within two (2) weeks, the College shall produce from the personnel records of

these employees (within the last three (3) years) any and all documents related to job performance,

including but not limited to qualifications and performance appraisals.

Ms. Keller-McIntyre is forewarned that she risks imposition of sanctions if she designates an

employee(s) who could not reasonably be considered similarly situated such that the University

would be compelled to move for -- and the Court issue -- a protective order. Likewise, the

University is forewarned that it risks imposition of sanctions if it files a motion for a protective order

based on too narrow an interpretation of who might be similarly situated.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 111 and 123.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 127 Filed 11/29/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre

P.O. Box 320662

San Francisco, CA 94132

415/314-4204 (cell)

415/405-3943 (work)

ALL OTHER COUNSEL/PARTIES TO

RECEIVE ORDER VIA ELECTRONIC

FILING

Dated: November 29, 2006 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 127 Filed 11/29/06 Page 6 of 6