Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., TSMC North America, TSMC Technology, Inc., TSMC Arizona Corporation, and TSMC Washington, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls TSMC. The plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice of employment discrimination against people who are not East Asian, are not Taiwanese or Chinese, and are not citizens of Taiwan or China. They assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII for disparate treatment, disparate impact, and hostile work environment. Some named plaintiffs also assert individual claims.

The parties asked the court to resolve a dispute over 11 document requests, called requests for production or RFPs. The court applied 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. Proportionality considers factors including the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.

Rulings on the Document Requests

RFP 5: CHIPS Act materials. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to compel documents about TSMC’s application for, receipt of, and spending of CHIPS Act funding, including a diversity plan. The court found those materials not relevant on the present record because the plaintiffs sought to show that TSMC breached a commitment to a government agency, rather than to show TSMC’s employment practices. The court stated that the materials might become relevant if TSMC later contends that its hiring and retention of U.S. workers were affected by a shortage of necessary skills.

RFP 12: Performance records. The plaintiffs sought performance records for all TSMC employees located in the United States during the relevant period. The court found that employment records could be relevant to statistical evidence of disparities in employment decisions, but concluded that the request, as framed, was too broad because it covered all employees, positions, locations, employment decisions, and decision makers without identifying the relevant comparison variables. The court also found that producing only the named plaintiffs’ records would be insufficient. It ordered the parties to confer further about a suitable methodology and criteria, including possibly sampling, and about privacy protections. The parties were directed to file a status report with their agreed or separate proposals by September 19, 2025.

RFP 13: Business plans and regularly created reports. The court ordered TSMC to produce all responsive documents for the relevant time period. The court found that the request appeared to seek relevant information that would not impose an undue burden.

RFPs 14 and 15: Affirmative-action, diversity, and equal-employment data. The court ordered TSMC to produce documents responsive to both requests as TSMC had committed to do in the parties’ discovery letter or as otherwise directed in the order. The court noted that TSMC had agreed to produce affirmative-action plan data and had committed to produce its EEO-1 Component 1 Reports submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the putative class period. The court explained that producing the reports appeared to satisfy the full scope of RFP 15.

RFP 20: Financial information. The plaintiffs sought annual revenue, margins, and payroll information for TSMC’s U.S. and worldwide operations. The court found that this information was not relevant to matters bearing on class certification and denied the request to compel production at this time, without prejudice.

RFP 22: Disparaging remarks. The court found the request for all electronically stored information reflecting discriminatory or disparaging remarks to be overbroad. It accepted TSMC’s proposal, at least as a starting point, to search materials of the named plaintiffs’ supervisors. TSMC was ordered to identify those supervisors, who would serve as the custodians whose materials must be searched.

RFPs 23 and 26: Workplace injuries, safety, and government investigations. The plaintiffs sought broad information about workplace injuries or deaths and communications concerning government investigations into visa practices, discrimination, safety violations, and dangerous working conditions. The court recognized that the complaint included specific allegations involving unsafe conditions, an assault, and retaliation or constructive discharge. But it found that those allegations did not support the broad company-wide discovery sought. The court did not require TSMC to produce documents responsive to RFPs 23 and 26 at this time.

RFPs 24 and 25: Complaints, grievances, and exit interviews. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to compel all documents concerning a wide range of complaints, grievances, investigations, disputes, and exit interviews. It found that the requests were extraordinarily broad and insufficiently tied to the asserted class claims. The court was not persuaded that the plaintiffs had shown how the requested materials would assist them in meeting the requirements for class certification.

Disposition

The order required TSMC to produce documents responsive to RFPs 13, 14, 15, and 22 as committed to in the discovery letter or as otherwise directed. TSMC did not have to produce documents responsive to RFPs 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26 at that time. The parties had to confer further about RFP 12 and submit a status report by September 19, 2025. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi resolved the discovery dispute without oral argument.