Kannan v. Apple Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:17-cv-07305
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Kannan v. Apple, Magistrate Judge Demarchi granted in part and denied in part Kannan’s protective-order request about Apple’s employment subpoenas.
Raja Kannan, Apple Inc., and the eleven companies that received Apple’s subpoenas were affected. The subpoenas remained allowed in part but were narrowed as to the requested documents and time period.
What happened
In Raja Kannan v. Apple Inc., Kannan objected to subpoenas Apple sent to eleven companies about his efforts to find employment. Apple said the information could show whether Kannan could have reduced his claimed losses and whether his skills compared with more highly compensated Apple employees.
The court allowed discovery about Kannan’s applications, resumes, cover letters, reasons for leaving or seeking work, and communications about applications and interviews. But it limited requests about interview records, requested compensation, and job offers to documents showing only interview dates, requested compensation, whether an offer was made, the offer’s terms, and whether Kannan accepted or rejected it.
The court also limited the subpoenas to Kannan’s employment efforts from December 1, 2015, to the present, and addressed privacy concerns through the existing protective order. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted in part and denied in part Kannan’s motion for a protective order.
The detailed version
- Kannan v. Apple Inc. · No. 5:17-cv-07305
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 15, 2019
Background
Raja Kannan objected to subpoenas that Apple Inc. served on eleven companies concerning Kannan’s efforts to obtain employment while he worked for Apple. Apple characterized the dispute as a motion to compel, but the court treated Kannan’s objections as a motion for a protective order because the subpoena recipients were not before the court and had apparently not objected themselves.
Kannan’s claims against Apple include discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act and California Family Rights Act, and wrongful discharge. He alleges that Apple’s conduct forced him to resign and relocate to India, causing lost wages, benefits, and employment opportunities. Apple argued that information about Kannan’s job-search efforts was relevant to whether he could have mitigated, or reduced, his damages and to whether his skills were comparable to those of more highly compensated Apple employees.
Discovery Requests and Legal Standard
The subpoenas sought applications, resumes, cover letters, job descriptions, explanations for leaving Apple or seeking new employment, application and interview correspondence, interview records, requested compensation, and information about whether an offer was made and accepted or rejected. They initially covered the period from August 29, 2011, to the present. Apple proposed limiting the period to 2013 through the present; Kannan proposed limiting it to 2016 through May 2017.
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs subpoenas to nonparties, together with Rule 26’s limits on discovery. Apple had to show that the requested information was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. If Apple met that burden, Kannan had to show good cause for barring the discovery. A protective order is an order limiting or prohibiting discovery to protect a party’s interests.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Kannan’s efforts to obtain employment and the results of those efforts were directly relevant to his claims and Apple’s defenses, particularly because Kannan claimed ongoing damages. The court also noted Apple’s contention that it had not obtained complete information from Kannan himself.
The court rejected broader discovery into what the subpoenaed companies thought of Kannan’s skills and experience during his tenure at Apple. Kannan’s compensation, benefits, and lack of promotion claims concerned Apple’s particular job-level and promotion system, and Apple had not shown that the system was shared by the other companies. The court therefore found that such discovery was not relevant and proportional.
The court allowed Apple to seek documents sufficient to show the dates of any interviews, the compensation Kannan requested, whether an employment offer was extended or denied, the terms of any offer, and Kannan’s acceptance or rejection of an offer. The subpoenas could not seek broader interview records, broader compensation-related documents, or broader offer-related materials beyond those limits.
The court determined that the subpoenas could cover Kannan’s employment efforts beginning December 1, 2015, because the record indicated that he may have begun seeking other employment around late 2015 or early 2016, near the time of his internal complaint at Apple. Because Kannan sought damages for ongoing harm, the court allowed the subpoenas to extend to the present. The court found that the narrowed subpoenas were not unduly burdensome and did not contain disparaging representations; privacy concerns could be addressed through the operative protective order.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Kannan’s motion for a protective order. It further limited the subpoenas to Kannan’s employment efforts with the eleven companies from December 1, 2015, to the present, and required Apple to serve the order on those companies by October 17, 2019. The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.