5:17-cv-06589
N.D. Cal.Aug 29, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Syed Nazim Ali sued eBay alleging discrimination, ADA failure-to-accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination; discovery dispute arose over RFP No. 8 seeking sit‑and‑stand desk requests.
- Ali’s original RFP No. 8 sought five years of employee requests for sit‑and‑stand desks with identifying data (names, titles, departments, age, race, national origin), managers’ names, and related policies.
- Magistrate Judge van Keulen modified RFP No. 8: limited timeframe to May 23–August 5, 2016 (Ali’s employment), required information sufficient to identify requesting individuals, and required production of relevant policies.
- eBay sought partial relief from the magistrate’s nondispositive order, arguing (1) overbreadth/burden and (2) disclosure would invade third‑party employees’ privacy by exposing sensitive medical information. The court previously rejected the overbreadth/burden challenge.
- The district court directed limited supplemental briefing on whether the modified RFP implicated third‑party privacy interests and whether disclosure was proper under the balancing test; Ali focused only on relevance and did not address privacy concerns.
- The district court concluded Ali failed to show the need for disclosure outweighs third‑party privacy interests in sensitive medical information; production of the requests was denied without prejudice to a later motion in Phase II discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFP No. 8 (as narrowed) should be produced despite implicating third‑party privacy | Ali: Documents are relevant and material to ADA/discrimination/retaliation claims; protective order will preserve confidentiality | eBay: Requests include sensitive medical details of third parties; protective order insufficient because non‑attorney Ali would have access and AEO is unavailable | Court: Denied production — Ali did not show need outweighs privacy; ordered relief for eBay as to RFP No. 8 |
| Whether magistrate applied proper legal standard regarding privacy balancing | Ali: Magistrate was within discretion and considered relevance/proportionality | eBay: Magistrate failed to consider third‑party privacy balancing factors | Court: Magistrate erred by omitting privacy balancing; district court applied balancing and ruled for eBay |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court may not substitute its judgment for magistrate on nondispositive matters; standard of review is highly deferential)
- Stallworth v. Brollini, 288 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (privacy‑balancing factors for disclosure of sensitive third‑party information)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (Cal. 2017) (California law requires balancing competing considerations when private information is sought)