Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc.

Background

Kimberly Emerson alleged that she worked as a supervisor for Iron Mountain in Livermore, California. Near the end of an approved medical leave, Iron Mountain allegedly removed her from her position, did not contact her about possible workplace accommodations or an extended leave, and fired her. Emerson alleged disability-, race-, and gender-based discrimination and retaliation.

During discovery—the evidence-gathering phase of a lawsuit—Emerson served requests for production seeking documents about complaints made by employees against Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain declined to produce the requested documents, so Emerson asked the court to order production.

Rulings by Category

Category 1: Complaints involving seven officials. This category covered documents about formal or informal complaints or allegations of disability- or race-related discrimination, retaliation, or harassment against Gia Allen, Michael Mahoney, Michelle Coffey, Sarah Rook, Rachel Lechinsky, Theresa Wall, or George Rubi. The court found these documents potentially relevant because the seven officials allegedly played roles in the actions against Emerson, and such evidence could bear on their motives. Iron Mountain was required to produce all documents within Category 1.

Category 2: Other alleged misconduct involving the seven officials. This broader category covered complaints, allegations, or observations of any inappropriate or unlawful conduct involving the same seven officials. The court found the category overbroad because some responsive documents would have no bearing on Emerson’s claims. Iron Mountain was required to produce only documents concerning formal complaints, disciplinary action, or reprimands directed at those officials. It was not required to produce the other documents covered by Category 2.

Category 3: Complaints involving any California employee. This category sought documents about disability- or race-related discrimination, retaliation, or harassment complaints against any Iron Mountain employee, made by any company employee in California from January 1, 2015, through the present. The court found that Emerson had not shown this statewide discovery was reasonably tailored or proportional to the needs of the case. Iron Mountain was not required to produce these documents.

Category 4: California court complaint face sheets. This category sought the face sheet—the first page identifying the parties and case—of any California court complaint filed on or after January 1, 2015, by an Iron Mountain employee or former employee naming Iron Mountain. The court declined to compel production because this statewide discovery had not been shown appropriate and the face sheets were part of the public record. Iron Mountain was not required to produce them.

Order

The court ordered Iron Mountain to produce the Category 1 documents and the limited Category 2 documents by September 24, 2021. Iron Mountain otherwise did not need to produce documents falling within Categories 2 through 4. The opinion is a discovery ruling and did not decide the merits of Emerson’s discrimination or retaliation claims.

Judge

The order was signed by Alex G. Tse, United States Magistrate Judge.