Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn KX NAULA NDUGGA, : Plaintiff, : ORDER ~V.- : Civ. 7464 (GHW) (GWG) BLOOMBERG L.P. et al, : Defendants. : wn KX GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters (Docket ## 201, 203) relating to plaintiff's request for human resources (“HR”) data for editors and reporters. Plaintiff was a producer. To show relevance of data relating to editors and reporters, she must show that there 1s some decision-making group or process common to the two groups that operated to make employment decisions. See generally Hollander v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1990) (employee entitled to evidence relating to “company-wide practices” where that evidence “may reveal patterns of discrimination against a group of employees”).

Here, we accept that there was only sporadic involvement by the Editorial Management Committee in compensation decisions for all three job categories. Nonetheless, there is at least some involvement and the defendants have made only conclusory statements as to burden (and did not even respond to the plaintiffs argument regarding lack of burden). Accordingly, the Court will require the production of the HR data as to the editors and reporters. That being said, to the extent that defendants can show that a particular limited subset of the HR data would be particularly burdensome to produce, the defendants should discuss the issue with plaintiffs and attempt to reach an agreement. If there are any disputes as to burden with respect to the limited subset, the defendants may bring the issue to the Court’s attention.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2023 New York, New York Soe ag esl United States Magistrate Judge