Khan v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAIFULLAH KHAN, Case No. 19-cv-08027-JSC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 73

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Now pending before the Court are two joint discovery dispute letters. After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and rules as set forth below.

1. Dkt. No. 72

Information regarding the promotion of Plaintiff’s comparator shortly after Plaintiff was terminated are relevant. While Defendants insist they have produced all “located” documents, they do not explain what they did to locate responsive documents. It appears they did not do an electronic search as they claim that a search of email would be too burdensome. They offer no support for that assertion, however, and it is not self-evident that a targeted search of relevant custodians would be too burdensome. Further, their contention that Plaintiff can take depositions to obtain the information is not well-taken. Plaintiff is entitled to contemporaneous documentation rather than after-the-fact testimony. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further search and response to Request No. 25 is GRANTED.

2. Dkt. No. 73

Any slight relevance of the performance evaluations of Plaintiff’s supervisors is outweighed Court, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342, 345 (1987). This is especially so given that Defendants represent || that they have already produced investigation reports of discrimination complaints against one manager and that they are not aware of any complaints against the other. The motion to compel || Plaintiffs supervisors’ performance evaluations is DENIED.

5 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 72, 73.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 || Dated: April 5, 2021

9 ne

JA@QUELINE SCOTT CORGEY United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18