Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03425/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03425-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Avon Products, Inc.
Defendant
Arnett Moore
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

ARNETT MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVON PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3425 SBA (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docket No. 30)

Plaintiff Arnett Moore filed a motion to compel, which was heard on May 2, 2007. Prior to

the hearing, the majority of the disputes raised in the motion were resolved by the parties. Only two

document requests, Nos. 21 and 23, remained at issue for Court resolution.

At the hearing, the Court provided the parties with guidance on the two remaining disputes

and ordered a further meet and confer. After the meet and confer, the parties reached substantial

agreement on RFP Nos. 21 and 23. The Court denied without prejudice Mr. Moore’s request for

redivisioning documents with respect to Ms. Franklin (Ms. Caswell’s boss). As to personnel-type

documents, the Court denied Defendant Avon Products, Inc.’s request that employees be given

notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to production of such documents. Avon did not cite any

authority establishing that this procedure is required by the California Constitution or the California

legislature in this context. Moreover, privacy concerns should be adequately addressed as the

documents may be redacted for irrelevant information prior to production and shall be produced

pursuant to a protective order.

Case 4:06-cv-03425-SBA Document 46 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Moore’s motion to compel is granted in part and

denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03425-SBA Document 46 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 2