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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANKIE ANTOINE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAPITOL DEL GRANDE 2, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:17-cv-00542-LHK (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 1

Re: Dkt. No. 32

Frankie Antoine and Carlos Thomas (together “plaintiffs”) are African American (and 

Native American) men who were employed as automobile salespersons at Capitol Chevrolet in 

San Jose. They sue DGDG 4 LLC and DGDG Management LLC (“defendants”), their former 

employers, for discrimination, harassment, hostile working environment, and retaliation based on 

their race.

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1 (“DDJR #1”), the plaintiffs seek an order requiring 

defendants to produce the personnel files of 9 non-parties who are (or, perhaps, were) employees 

of Capitol Chevrolet. Four of these individuals are alleged harassers: Amaya, Azimi, Diaz, and 

Hayes. Two are senior managers to whom the plaintiffs allegedly complained without success: 

Jobe and Munger. Two are co-workers who allegedly witnessed the harassment of the plaintiffs 

and signed declarations to that effect: Endemann and Recalde. The ninth is another of plaintiffs’ 
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

supervisors: Jeremy Beaver. Basically, plaintiffs sought all information about “workplace 

conduct” of all 9. Defendants objected to the document request as overbroad, irrelevant, and an 

invasion of third-party privacy.

Defendants’ principal objection is that any production should be limited to workplace 

conduct associated with race, and not conduct about anything and everything. The court agrees 

with defendants on this point, so long as “race” is broadly interpreted to include information 

however vaguely or remotely race might be involved or implicated. Plaintiffs express concern that 

defendants will take a very narrow view of “race-based” workplace conduct. The court warns 

them not to do so, for, if they do and get caught, the consequences could be severe.

Basically, defendants shall produce all information mentioning either plaintiff or AfricanAmerican or Native American persons in general. They shall produce all information suggesting 

or alluding to race-based animus, bias, discrimination, or harassment, as directed or applied to one 

or both plaintiffs, or to African-Americans or Native Americans in general. They shall include all 

reports, allegations, comments, references, statements, job performance evaluations, and 

investigations that describe, relate, reference, suggest, pertain, concern, or describe what the court 

just indicated is the proper scope of the inquiry. They shall include not only information in 

personnel files of the 9 named third parties, but also any such information in documents covered 

by Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5, as well as any and all files (including electronically stored 

information) about race-based animus, bias, discrimination, or harassment, even if such 

information is intermixed with other types of work-place misconduct. This includes information 

about “horseplay,” violence, and demeaning or pejorative comments made to or about plaintiffs. 

Because plaintiff Antoine allegedly was terminated for violation of a “conflict of interest 

policy,” defendants shall also produce all documentation about Antoine’s termination and the 

applicable conflict of interest policy. Furthermore, because both plaintiffs allege that defendants 

retaliated against them by denying them earned promotions, defendants shall produce all 

documents about those promotional decisions as well.

Defendants’ objections based on third party privacy are overruled. Personal identifying 

information may be redacted. The protective order will suffice to provide appropriate protection 
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

of privacy. Any information withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege or the work product 

doctrine shall be described on a privilege log provided at the time of document production.

The information shall be produced by defendants by November 9, 2017.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge