Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., TSMC North America, TSMC Technology, Inc., TSMC Arizona Corporation, and TSMC Washington, LLC (collectively, “TSMC” or “defendants”) engaged in an intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination. The alleged discrimination concerned race, national origin, and citizenship, including discrimination in hiring, staffing, promotion, and retention or termination. The plaintiffs also alleged a hostile work environment. They asserted class claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, including disparate-treatment, disparate-impact, and hostile-work-environment claims. Certain named plaintiffs also asserted individual claims.

Discovery dispute

The parties asked the court to resolve a dispute concerning four requests for production, or RFPs, seeking applicant and employee data. RFP 1 sought information about people who applied for positions in the United States, including identity, race, national origin, citizenship, visa type, application details, interviews, offers, hiring, and information about people ultimately hired. RFP 2 sought information about United States employees, including identity, race, national origin, citizenship, visa type, employment history, positions, job levels, promotions, performance ratings, performance-improvement plans, and termination or resignation information.

RFP 3 sought information about employees for whom TSMC sought visas. RFP 4 sought information about employees for whom TSMC filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification, known as a PERM application, or a green-card application.

The plaintiffs said the information was needed for statistical analyses supporting their pattern-or-practice claims and was available in standard human-resources data sources or existing Excel files. TSMC argued that the data was not readily accessible, that production should be limited to the named plaintiffs, and that the requests sought confidential information about thousands of people, including immigration-status information.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the discovery standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court was not persuaded that TSMC lacked standard applicant and employee data in readily accessible forms. It also rejected limiting production to the named plaintiffs, reasoning that such a limitation would not allow the plaintiffs to develop statistical evidence about disparities in hiring, staffing, promotion, and retention or termination decisions.

For RFPs 1 and 2, the court found that the requested information other than certain immigration-related data was reasonably necessary for the plaintiffs’ statistical analyses. The court recognized that the data included personally identifiable information about nonparties but found that their privacy interests could be protected by limiting access to the plaintiffs’ counsel and appropriate experts under the protective order, with safeguards against disclosure and use for purposes unrelated to the identified statistical analyses.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not explained why they needed each applicant’s or employee’s “visa type” or information about whether TSMC sought permanent labor certification or a green card for an employee. The court treated immigration status as sensitive information and found that the plaintiffs’ claims concerned race, national origin, and citizenship—not visa type or immigration status. For the same reason, the court found that the plaintiffs had not explained why they needed the detailed visa, PERM, and green-card information sought by RFPs 3 and 4.

Order

The court ordered TSMC to produce data from its human-resources data sources and Excel files responsive to RFPs 1 and 2, except for data showing visa type or whether TSMC sought a permanent labor certification or green card on an employee’s behalf. TSMC’s production had to be substantially complete by September 19, 2025. If TSMC claimed that it did not have or could not access an item within the permitted scope, it had to identify the item and explain why it could not be produced. The court stated that remaining disputes could be brought to its attention.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to compel production responsive to RFPs 3 and 4 and stated that TSMC was not required to produce that data. The order was entered by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.