Khan v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 SAIFULLAH KHAN, Case No. 19-cv-08027-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES v. [9] Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 73 10 AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. [12] 13 Now pending before the Court are two joint discovery dispute letters. After carefully 14 considering the parties’ written submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is 15 unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and rules as set forth below. 16 1. Dkt. No. 72 17 Information regarding the promotion of Plaintiff’s comparator shortly after Plaintiff was 18 terminated are relevant. While Defendants insist they have produced all “located” documents, 19 they do not explain what they did to locate responsive documents. It appears they did not do an 20 electronic search as they claim that a search of email would be too burdensome. They offer no 21 support for that assertion, however, and it is not self-evident that a targeted search of relevant 22 custodians would be too burdensome. Further, their contention that Plaintiff can take depositions 23 to obtain the information is not well-taken. Plaintiff is entitled to contemporaneous 24 documentation rather than after-the-fact testimony. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a 25 further search and response to Request No. 25 is GRANTED. 26 2. Dkt. No. 73 27 Any slight relevance of the performance evaluations of Plaintiff’s supervisors is outweighed 1 Court, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342, 345 (1987). This is especially so given that Defendants represent 2 || that they have already produced investigation reports of discrimination complaints against one 3 manager and that they are not aware of any complaints against the other. The motion to compel 4 || 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 [8] 9 ne 10 JA@QUELINE SCOTT CORGEY United States Magistrate Judge [17] Z 18