Handloser v. HCL America, Inc.

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve two discovery disputes concerning the plaintiffs’ interrogatories to HCL America, Inc. and HCL Technologies Ltd., which the opinion collectively calls “HCL.” The court had previously heard oral argument on January 28, 2019.

The plaintiffs’ proposed class action alleges that HCL engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional racial discrimination, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and following provisions. The plaintiffs alleged that at least 70% of HCL’s U.S.-based workforce was South Asian, while about 12% of the relevant labor pool was South Asian. They argued that HCL used various techniques to produce those workforce demographics.

Interrogatory No. 1

Based on HCL’s representations during the hearing, the court ordered HCL to serve a complete response to the plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1 (Set 2) by January 30, 2020.

Interrogatory No. 2

Interrogatory No. 2 asked HCL to describe its federal affirmative-action obligations, including the years in which it had to comply with the affirmative-action requirements in 41 C.F.R. part 60-2 and why those requirements supposedly did not apply in any particular year.

The plaintiffs argued that evidence of HCL’s failure to comply with federal affirmative-action obligations could be relevant to HCL’s discriminatory intent. The court agreed that, if HCL had an obligation under the regulations to develop and comply with an affirmative-action program, its failure to do so could be relevant. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs could seek the factual basis for HCL’s position that it had no such obligation, even though an interrogatory cannot demand only a pure legal conclusion.

However, the court found that Interrogatory No. 2 was not limited to that factual basis. Instead, it broadly sought a narrative description of all of HCL’s federal affirmative-action obligations. The court held that this request was not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case and was not a proper subject for an interrogatory. HCL therefore need not answer Interrogatory No. 2. The plaintiffs could withdraw it and serve a different interrogatory that complied with the court’s ruling.

Interrogatory No. 3

Interrogatory No. 3 asked HCL to identify everyone who provided factual information connected to HCL’s answers to the plaintiffs’ interrogatories, along with each person’s title, position, department, employee number, duties, and the interrogatories for which the person provided information.

The plaintiffs said they sought this information to determine where HCL’s information came from, who might be relevant witnesses, and who might possess relevant discovery. HCL argued that the request sought information protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and also argued that the request exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

The work-product doctrine generally protects materials prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation, including attorneys’ legal strategies and mental impressions. It does not ordinarily protect facts unless disclosing them would inherently reveal those strategies or mental impressions.

HCL had not specifically asserted work-product protection in its written response to Interrogatory No. 3. The court nevertheless declined to find waiver. It considered the objection’s apparent assertion a few days later in correspondence, the fact that the failure concerned one interrogatory, and the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs. The court therefore considered the work-product objection on its merits.

The court found that Interrogatory No. 3 was broad enough to include people whom counsel contacted or interviewed while gathering information, not merely people who knew the underlying facts. The court concluded that identifying those people could reveal which witnesses counsel considered especially relevant or important. For that reason, Interrogatory No. 3 implicated HCL’s work-product protection, and HCL need not answer it. The plaintiffs could withdraw it and serve a different interrogatory asking HCL to identify witnesses with knowledge of particular subject matter.

Because the court ruled that HCL need not answer Interrogatory No. 3 on work-product grounds, it did not decide whether the interrogatory exceeded Rule 33’s 25-interrogatory limit.

Disposition

The court ordered HCL to provide a complete response to Interrogatory No. 1 by January 30, 2020. It ruled that HCL need not answer Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3, while allowing the plaintiffs to serve narrower replacement interrogatories. The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.