Handloser v. HCL America, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 GREGORY HANDLOSER, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01242-LHK (VKD) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 10 v. NOS. 4 AND 5 RE PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES 11 HCL AMERICA, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 69, 70 Defendants. 12 13 The parties ask the Court to resolve two discovery disputes concerning plaintiffs’ 14 interrogatories to defendants HCL America, Inc. and HCL Technologies Ltd. (collectively, 15 “HCL”). The Court heard oral argument on January 28, 2019. 16 In view of HCL’s representations during the hearing, the Court orders HCL to serve a 17 complete response to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1 (Set 2) by January 30, 2020. 18 The remaining disputes concern plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3 (Set 2), which the 19 Court addresses separately below. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that HCL engages in a pattern or practice of 22 racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Dkt. No. 40. 23 Specifically, plaintiffs allege that at least 70% of HCL’s U.S.-based workforce is South Asian, 24 even though only about 12% of the relevant labor pool is South Asian. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiffs contend 25 that HCL uses various techniques to achieve a workforce with these disproportionate 26 demographics and that these techniques amount to a pattern and practice of intentional 27 employment discrimination based on race. Id. ¶¶ 14-20 53, 58. 1 action, and raises a number of affirmative defenses. Dkt. No. 45. 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 A. Interrogatory No. 2 (Set 2) 4 Plaintiffs ask the Court to require HCL to answer Interrogatory No. 2, at least as it 5 concerns the affirmative action requirements in 41 C.F.R. part 60-2. Interrogatory No. 2 states: 6 Describe HCL’s federal affirmative action obligations, including but not limited to: (1) the years in which HCL was obliged to comply 7 with 41 C.F.R. part 60-2’s affirmative action requirements, and (2) why the affirmative action requirements of 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 did 8 not apply to HCL for any year in which you contend that they did not apply. 9 10 Dkt. No. 69-2 at 5. Plaintiffs argue that evidence that HCL failed to comply with its federal 11 affirmative action obligations is relevant to and probative of HCL’s discriminatory intent. Dkt. 12 No. 69 at 3. HCL objects that the interrogatory does not seek relevant information, and is so broad 13 that HCL would need to undertake “a full-scale audit” of its regulatory obligations in order to 14 respond. Id. at 6-8. HCL also argues that any such response would necessarily implicate attorney- 15 client privilege and attorney work product protections because it would require legal analysis. Id. 16 at 9.1 17 The federal regulations at 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 provide that certain “nonconstruction 18 (supply and service) contractors” working with the federal government must develop “affirmative 19 action programs.” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.1. The purpose of an affirmative action program is as a 20 “management tool designed to ensure equal employment opportunity.” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.10(a)(1). 21 According to the regulations, “[a] central premise underlying affirmative action is that, absent 22 discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and 23 ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects.” Id. The 24 regulations include requirements governing the contents of these programs and procedures for 25 evaluating contractors’ compliance with them. See, e.g., 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.10. 26 The Court agrees with plaintiffs that if HCL had an obligation under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 to 27 1 develop and comply with an affirmative action program, its failure to do so may be relevant to 2 plaintiffs’ claim of intentional racial discrimination. See Gonzales v. Police Dept., City of San 3 Jose, 901 F.2d 758, 760-61 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding that defendant’s failure to comply with 4 affirmative action plan mandated by a consent decree may be relevant to the question of 5 discriminatory intent); Taylor v. Teletype Corp., 648 F.2d 1129, 1135 n.14 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 6 454 U.S. 969 (1981) (observing that evidence of defendant’s failure to comply with an affirmative 7 action program or support the program’s director is also “relevant to discerning the Company’s 8 attitude regarding race”) (cited with approval in Gonzales). In these circumstances, plaintiffs 9 should be permitted to discover the factual basis for any contention by HCL that it did not have an 10 obligation to develop an affirmative action program under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 during the relevant 11 period of time, particularly if HCL intends to rely on those facts in disputing plaintiffs’ allegations 12 of intentional discrimination. While contention interrogatories directed to issues of pure law are 13 not permitted, a party may propound such interrogatories to seek the factual basis for the opposing 14 party’s position on an issue. See AngioScore, Inc. v TriReme Medical, Inc., Case No. 12-cv- 15 03393-YGR (JSC), 2014 WL 7188779 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (“If, as a legal matter, 16 Defendant contends he was not under a legal duty to disclose the opportunity to Plaintiff, then 17 Defendant should say so and explain why.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (“An interrogatory is not 18 objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the 19 application of law to fact . . . .”). 20 However, the Court agrees with HCL that Interrogatory No. 2 is not limited to discovery of 21 HCL’s contention that it had no obligation under 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 or to the facts that support 22 such a contention. The interrogatory asks for HCL’s description of its “federal affirmative action 23 obligations, including but not limited to” other more specific information. HCL is correct that an 24 interrogatory seeking a narrative description of all of HCL’s federal legal obligations concerning 25 affirmative action is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case, nor a proper subject 26 for an interrogatory. For this reason, HCL need not answer Interrogatory No. 2. However, 27 plaintiffs may withdraw this interrogatory and serve a different interrogatory that complies with B. Interrogatory No. 3 (Set 2) 1 Plaintiffs ask the Court to require HCL to answer Interrogatory No. 3, which states: 2 Identify all persons who provided factual information in connection 3 with your answers to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (including this set of interrogatories, prior sets of interrogatories, and any subsequent sets 4 of interrogatories), including, for each such person, his or her title, position, department, employee number, duties and the specific 5 Interrogatory(ies) for which the person provided information. 6 Dkt. No. 69-2 at 6. Plaintiffs say that, with respect to the interrogatories HCL has answered so far, 7 HCL’s corporate representative, Kuldeep Rawat, has relied on the following statement when 8 verifying HCL’s answers: 9 I am informed and believe that the facts stated in the foregoing responses are within knowledge of Defendants but not entirely 10 within my personal knowledge, that there is not one agent or officer who has personal knowledge of all such facts, and that the facts 11 stated herein have been assembled by authorized agents and counsel of Defendants. Subject to this limitation, I am informed and believe 12 that the facts stated in the foregoing responses are true and correct. 13 Dkt. No. 70 at 1; Dkt. No. 70-1 at 12. Plaintiffs want to know who provided the factual 14 information on which HCL relied for its interrogatory answers so that they can “determine where 15 the information came from, who relevant witnesses may be, and who may possess relevant 16 discovery.” Dkt. No. 70 at 2-3. HCL argues that this interrogatory impermissibly seeks discovery 17 of information protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Dkt. No. 70 at 5-7. HCL also 18 argues that this interrogatory contains as many subparts as there are interrogatories served (or to 19 be served) and therefore exceeds Rule 33’s 25-interrogatory limit. Id. at 7-8. 20 The Court first addresses whether HCL has waived its work product objection by failing to 21 assert that objection in its written response to Interrogatory No. 3. See Dkt. No. 70 at 3; Dkt. No. 22 69-2 at 6. HCL does not dispute that it did not specifically object to this interrogatory on work 23 product grounds in its written response, but argues that it preserved this objection by incorporating 24 its “general objections” by reference into its responses to each interrogatory, including 25 Interrogatory No. 3, and by raising the objection in subsequent correspondence with plaintiffs’ 26 counsel. Dkt. No. 70 at 8. 27 Under Rule 33(b)(4), the grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated “with 1 insufficient. See, e.g., Shyh-Yih Hao v. Wu-Fu Chen, No. C10-00826 LHK (HRL), 2011 WL 2 741225, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011). Generally, any objection that is not timely stated is 3 waived, unless the Court, for good cause, excuses the failure to object. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). 4 However, the Ninth Circuit has rejected a per se waiver rule with respect to the assertion of 5 privileges, and instead requires courts to engage in a “holistic reasonableness analysis” that 6 considers several factors. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 7 408 F.3d 1142, 1147-1149 (9th Cir. 2005). 8 HCL did not timely assert a work product objection in its response to Interrogatory No. 3, 9 and it provides no explanation for its failure to comply with Rule 33(b)(4) or for its reliance on 10 “general objections.” However, the Court is reluctant to find waiver in these circumstances, where 11 the objection appears to have been asserted a few days later in correspondence between counsel 12 and where the failure to assert work product protection concerns a single interrogatory. See id. at 13 1149 (discussing factors to be considered when evaluating waiver of privilege). As nothing in the 14 record suggests plaintiffs will be prejudiced if the Court resolves HCL’s work product objection 15 on the merits, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to find waiver here. 16 The Court next considers whether Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the disclosure of information 17 protected by the work product doctrine. This doctrine protects from discovery materials that are 18 prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 26(b)(3). The doctrine provides qualified protection against discovery of the legal strategies and 20 mental impressions of a party’s counsel. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508-10 (1947); 21 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390-91 (1981). It does not protect facts from 22 disclosure, unless disclosure of those facts would inherently reveal an attorney’s strategies or 23 mental impressions. See, e.g., O’Toole v. City of Antioch, No. 11-cv-01502-PJH (MEJ), 2015 WL 24 1848134, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015); Hamilton v. RadioShack Corp., No. C 11-00888 LB, 25 2012 WL 2327191, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2012). 26 HCL’s work product objection to Interrogatory No. 3 presents a close call. On the one 27 hand, HCL’s corporate representative attests that the facts stated in HCL’s interrogatory answers 1 individuals besides the representative have knowledge of those facts. On the other hand, 2 || plaintiffs’ interrogatory is not limited to an identification of those “authorized agents” with 3 || knowledge of the facts; rather, the interrogatory asks HCL to identify “all persons who provided 4 || factual information in connection with your answers to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories,” which is broad 5 enough to include anyone who assisted counsel in gathering factual information or whom counsel 6 || identified and sought out for such assistance. 7 The Court has reviewed the cases cited by the parties and finds the decision in Strauss v. 8 Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 242 F.R.D. 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) the most persuasive. In Strauss, the court 9 || distinguished between interrogatories seeking the identities of people with knowledge, which is 10 || clearly permissible, and interrogatories seeking the identities of people contacted or interviewed 11 by counsel during an investigation, which is not. /d. at 231 (citing cases). In considering an 12 || tnterrogatory similar to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 3, the court observed that the interrogatory did 5 13 not simply ask for the identities of witnesses with knowledge of the facts, but asked for the 14 || identities of witnesses who participated in the preparation of the interrogatory responses, 3 15 potentially revealing the witnesses whom counsel considered the most relevant or important to the 16 || case. Id. at 231-32. The Strauss court denied a motion to compel an answer to that interrogatory 3 17 on work product grounds. /d. Here, Interrogatory No. 3 raises similar concerns because it frames 18 || the question in a way that implicates information about counsel’s efforts to obtain the factual 19 || information necessary to answer plaintiffs’ interrogatories. Because the Court concludes that 20 || Interrogatory No. 3 implicates HCL’s work product protection, HCL need not answer this 21 interrogatory. However, plaintiffs may withdraw this interrogatory and serve a different 22 || interrogatory that asks HCL to identify witnesses with knowledge of particular subject matter.” 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: January 30, 2020 6 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 Because the Court concludes that HCL need not answer Interrogatory No. 3, it does not reach the question of whether that interrogatory would have exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit.