Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Background

Derek Mobley brought this employment-discrimination case and proposed class action against Workday, Inc. The opinion says Mobley alleges that Workday used an artificial-intelligence screening system that was more likely to deny applicants who are African American, have disabilities, or are over 40 years old. The parties presented discovery disputes to the court.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The information does not have to be admissible at trial to be discoverable. The party seeking an order compelling discovery initially must show that the requested information is relevant and proportional.

Requests for Production

For Request for Production 3, Mobley sought group-membership data for evaluation data used to assess bias and demographic disparities in the relevant model or models. Workday represented that no such data existed. The court accepted that representation and denied Mobley’s request.

For Requests for Production 9, 14, and 15, Mobley sought Workday’s internal data and audit documents. Mobley argued that, even if a privilege applied, it would cover communications about the data rather than the underlying facts. Workday asserted attorney-client privilege and argued that the underlying data also was protected as attorney work product because Workday had to curate it. The court ordered supplemental briefing on these disputes.

For Request for Production 17, Mobley sought all applicant-flow data for several corporate entities that Mobley asserted were under Workday’s control. Workday argued that it did not own the requested information and that producing it might violate privacy laws. The court ordered the parties to brief these issues.

For Requests for Production 1, 4–8, 10–13, 16, and 19–25, Mobley sought documents concerning how Workday’s services are used and developed. Because the parties disagreed about whether they had met and conferred, the court found this dispute not ready for decision.

Ruling and Schedule

The court denied the discovery and ordered supplemental briefing concerning Requests for Production 9, 14, 15, and 17. The order set deadlines of May 30, 2025, for Mobley’s brief; June 13, 2025, for Workday’s response; and June 20, 2025, for Mobley’s reply. The parties were directed to notice a later hearing or could agree to a different briefing schedule. The court also directed them to consult its standing order for future discovery disputes.