Case Information
*1 JULIE A. TOTTEN (STATE BAR NO. 166470)
jatotten@orrick.com
ERIN M. CONNELL (STATE BAR NO. 223355)
econnell@orrick.com
KAYLA D. GRUNDY (STATE BAR NO. 300513)
kgrundy@orrick.com
ALEXANDRIA R. ELLIOTT (STATE BAR NO. 320293)
aelliott@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: (415) 773-5700
Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
Attorneys for Defendant
WORKDAY, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEREK L. MOBLEY, for and on behalf of Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL himself and other persons similarly situated;
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON JOINT Plaintiff, LETTER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE
v.
WORKDAY, INC.
Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff Derek Mobley (“Mobley”) and Defendant Workday, Inc. (“Workday”) submitted a joint letter to the Court (the “Letter”) to compel the production of documents pursuant to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. Having read and considered the Letter, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s request to compel documents be DENIED, as follows:
Plaintiff’s request to compel the production of documents pursuant to Request for Production No. 3 is DENIED because the evaluation data Plaintiff seeks does not exist. See Acosta v. JY Harvesting, Inc. , No. 17-CV-1225-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3437654, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2017) (“The Court cannot compel production of that which does not exist or is not in the possession and control of Respondents.”).
Plaintiff’s request to compel the production of documents pursuant to Request for Production Nos. 9, 13, and 14 is DENIED because any testing Workday conducted of CSM was done at the direction of counsel and is protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The Court finds that the documents and information Plaintiff requires may be obtained by other non-privileged means.
Production No. 17 is because Workday is not in possession, custody, or control of its customer’s applicant data, nor must Workday bear the burden of obtaining third-party discovery on Plaintiff’s behalf. See, e.g. , Heilman v. Vojkufka , 2011 WL 677877, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 3881023 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011) (“[D]efendant is not obliged to discover information from third parties on plaintiff's behalf.”); Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd. , 490 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] party is not obliged to produce, at the risk of sanctions, documents that it does not possess or cannot obtain . . . We also think it fairly obvious that a party also need not seek such documents from third parties if compulsory process against the third parties is available to the party seeking the documents.). The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s request to the extent it would require the Court to issue an order requiring Workday to violate the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2701 et seq. In *3 denying Plaintiff’s requested relief for applicant data, the Court reminds Plaintiff that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 remains available for seeking such information.
Production Nos. 1, 4-8, 10-13, 16, 19-25 is because Plaintiff has not specifically identified the documents he seeks to be compelled nor satisfied his burden to show these documents should be produced.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _______________________ _____________________________ Hon. Rita F. Lin
United States District Court Judge