Nguyen v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Mai Nguyen and United Airlines, Inc. asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute concerning United’s document production and its failure to provide a witness to testify for the company. Nguyen alleged that she was scalded with hot water during beverage service on an August 18, 2021 flight from Houston, Texas, to San Jose, California. The flight was operated by Mesa Airlines. Nguyen filed the action against United and Mesa on June 28, 2023.

Nguyen served document requests in October 2023 seeking, among other things, information about beverage-service policies and procedures, incident reports, medical-emergency response, and first-aid assistance. United objected and represented that it had not trained or supervised Mesa’s employees and had no responsive documents except correspondence with Nguyen’s son and a passenger list.

In November 2024, Nguyen served a deposition notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows an organization to be questioned through one or more representatives about listed subjects. The notice included 14 topics. United objected to every topic except one and initially refused to designate a representative. United later agreed to provide testimony about compensation it received from Mesa in connection with the flight, its investigation of passenger incidents on Mesa flights generally, and its investigation of the incident, but it had not provided that testimony by the February 3, 2025 discovery deadline.

The deposition notice also included 41 document requests. United agreed to produce relevant portions of a Capacity Purchase Agreement between United and Mesa, but it produced the agreement with numerous redactions. Nguyen argued that the agreement showed United required Mesa to comply with United’s policies and procedures concerning matters including emergency response and the standard of care. United argued that the requested information was irrelevant because it had no responsibility for the flight and argued that Nguyen’s request for relief was procedurally improper because she had waited 11 months after United objected to the original document requests.

Court’s analysis

The court declined to order production of all documents responsive to the 41 requests because Nguyen had not explained for every request why the documents were relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The court did find persuasive Nguyen’s arguments concerning United’s policies and procedures for beverage service, medical-emergency responses, and investigation of onboard incidents, as well as documents concerning United’s investigation of the incident. The court said United’s representations about its role appeared inconsistent with portions of the Capacity Purchase Agreement it had produced and that Nguyen’s lack of diligence did not excuse United’s failure to produce documents it arguably should have produced earlier.

The court also addressed United’s redactions to the agreement. United did not claim that the redacted material was protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, so the court found no need for a privilege log on that basis. The court explained that a party generally may not redact or withhold irrelevant portions of a document that also contains relevant responsive information. Because United did not explain why the case’s protective order was insufficient to protect confidential information, the court found its redactions to sections III and IV improper.

Order

The court granted in part Nguyen’s request for relief. It ordered United to produce by February 13, 2025:

- The Capacity Purchase Agreement with sections III and IV unredacted; - United’s policies and procedures concerning beverage service, medical-emergency responses, and investigation of onboard incidents; and - Documents concerning United’s investigation of the incident.

The court also ordered United to prepare and produce one or more representatives to testify about the Capacity Purchase Agreement and United’s policies and procedures concerning those three subjects. United was already obligated, based on its agreement, to provide testimony about compensation received from Mesa in connection with the flight, its investigation of passenger incidents on Mesa flights generally, and its investigation of the specific incident.

The court noted that the parties had agreed to a February 7, 2025 deposition concerning at least some topics, and ordered that deposition to proceed as agreed unless the parties agreed otherwise. After United completed the ordered document production, Nguyen could conduct a further deposition on the topics for which testimony was ordered; any such deposition had to occur by February 18, 2025, unless the parties agreed otherwise.