Karrani v. JetBlue Airways Corporation
2:18-cv-01510
W.D. Wash.May 28, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Abdikarim Karrani, an 81-year-old U.S. citizen, was removed from JetBlue Flight 263 (NY–SEA) on Jan. 20, 2018 after a disputed interaction with flight attendant Cindy Pancerman concerning lavatory use; JetBlue alleges Karrani struck the attendant and refused crew instructions.
- The flight diverted to Billings, MT for a medical emergency; police escorted Karrani off the aircraft; he purchased alternate travel and sought a refund from JetBlue, then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging racial/national-origin discrimination.
- Plaintiff served discovery; disputes led to a motion to compel (Dkt. #19). Plaintiff seeks passenger contact info, personnel files of crew and Sea-Tac supervisor, records of prior discrimination lawsuits against JetBlue, training materials on race/national-origin discrimination and implicit bias, and identification of interrogatory preparers.
- JetBlue produced some passenger contacts (rows 1–3 and several identified in incident reports) and agreed to produce Pancerman’s personnel file; objected to broader requests on privacy, proportionality, and relevance grounds.
- The Court resolved the motions: it denied a full passenger manifest disclosure; compelled production of personnel files for the five flight crew (subject to protective order); compelled records of other discrimination lawsuits since Jan. 2014 (to the extent responsive records exist); and compelled current training materials on race/national-origin discrimination and implicit bias that were in effect at the time of Flight 263. The Court denied meta-discovery identifying individuals who prepared the interrogatory responses and denied personnel files of the Sea‑Tac supervisor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passenger manifest/contact info | All passengers could be witnesses; need full manifest to locate witnesses | Federal law prohibits release of passenger contact info; JetBlue provided nearest-row contacts and incident-report names | Denied — full manifest not proportional; JetBlue’s limited production sufficient |
| Personnel files of crew and Sea‑Tac supervisor | Files show pattern/practice of discriminatory intent; crew directly involved/witnessed events | Production invades employee privacy and is disproportionate | Granted for five flight crew (produce under protective order); denied for Sea‑Tac supervisor |
| Prior litigated discrimination claims against JetBlue (since Jan 2014) | Requests seek substantive prior cases showing pattern; JetBlue’s supplemental production was incomplete (omitted Ramsey Abdallah) | JetBlue contends supplemental production moots the request | Granted — JetBlue must produce additional responsive records, including substantive suits if they exist |
| Training on race/national-origin discrimination and implicit bias | Needs materials in effect for flight crew at time of incident to show policies/practices | JetBlue says it produced responsive materials but some produced items relate to outside companies | Granted — produce training documents current at time of Flight 263 |
| Identification of persons who answered interrogatories (meta-discovery) | Needed to know who to cross-examine at trial | Disclosure would reveal discovery process and custodians without first-hand knowledge; burdensome | Denied — meta-discovery disfavored absent evidence of deficient responses |
Key Cases Cited
- Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (district courts have broad discretion in discovery relevancy)
- Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for district court discretion over discovery)
- Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) (party resisting discovery bears the burden to justify denial)
- McCoo v. Denny's Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675 (D. Kan. 2000) (personnel files discoverable when individuals engaged in contested discriminatory acts or played important roles)