1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MALIHE KIGASARI, Case No. 20-cv-01521-JST (SK)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING JOINT LETTER 9 v. BRIEF

10 CHARLOTTE A BURROWS, Regarding Docket No. 73 11 Defendant.

12 On January 25, 2022, the parties filed a joint discovery letter brief to address their pending 13 discovery dispute. Defendant seeks documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 41, 45, 14 and 46. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel and 15 ORDERS Plaintiff to produce responsive documents by February 11, 2022. 16 In this action, Plaintiff Malihe Kigasari alleges that Defendant discriminated against her on 17 the basis of sex, gender, gender non-conformity, sex stereotyping, sexual orientation, national 18 origin, race, and age, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and

et seq. and that 19 Defendant also retaliated against her in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and

623(d) et seq. (Dkt. No. 33.) Plaintiff alleges that her employment with the Equal Employment 21 Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) ended as a result of “constructive early retirement.” (Id.) 22 The Document Requests at issue address the issue of Plaintiff’s employment with two other entities – San Francisco State University and the University of California – Berkeley – after 23 her employment with the EEOC ended. The Document Requests are the following: 24 25 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any termination of your employment at San 26 Francisco State University from January 2019 to the present.

27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Plaintiff ambiguous, and seeks documents not calculated to lead to 1 admissible evidence. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff was 2 not terminated from SFSU and thus there are no responsive documents. 3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: All DOCUMENTS 4 CONCERNING any termination of your employment at the University of California, Berkeley from May 2019 to the present. 5

6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is overbroad and vague and 7 ambiguous; infringes on her right to privacy; and seeks documents not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving said 8 objections, Plaintiff was not terminated from UC Berkeley and thus there are no responsive documents. 9

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: All DOCUMENTS CONCERNING any termination of your relationship with the 11 University of California, Berkeley from May 2019 to the present.

12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is overbroad, vague and 13 ambiguous, and duplicative of other requests. It also seeks 14 documents not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff was not terminated from UC and 15 thus there are no responsive documents. 16 (Dkt. No. 74-2.) 17 Plaintiff objects to producing the documents on the grounds that, because she left San 18 Francisco State University and the University of California – Berkeley and because the two 19 entities did not terminate her employment, there are no responsive documents. Her objection is 20 based on a strained interpretation of the word “termination.” She interprets the term “termination” 21 to mean “involuntary termination” or “termination by the employer.” However, the Document 22 Requests at issue should not be read this narrowly. 23 Plaintiff then argues that the requests violate the right to privacy. Plaintiff did not object 24 on the basis of privacy in her responses, listed above, and thus, has waived that objection. 25 Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well 26 established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a 27 waiver of any objection.”) (citation omitted). 1 under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1). The question in evaluating discovery requests is not 2 || whether the evidence is ultimately admissible, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that 3 “{ijnformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 4 discoverable.” Defendant claims that the evidence is relevant to mitigation of damages, since 5 || Plaintiff allegedly resigned from two jobs after her employment with the EEOC ended. Defendant 6 also claims that this information may show a pattern and practice of behavior by the Plaintiff in 7 her jobs, which is potentially admissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 404(b). The 8 || parties may argue before the presiding judge before trial whether any of the evidence produced is 9 admissible for trial, but at this stage, the Court finds that the information is relevant to the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 28, 2022 + 2 _Atthan [vw SALLIE KIM 13 United States Magistrate Judge © 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28