Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-08607
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Emerson v. Iron Mountain, Judge Tse ordered limited supplemental interrogatory responses, denied further response to one interrogatory, and denied Emerson’s fee request.
Kimberly Emerson and Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. Iron Mountain must amend specified interrogatory responses by September 28, 2021; Emerson’s request for permission to seek attorneys’ fees was denied.
What happened
In Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc., the court resolved Kimberly Emerson’s disputes about Iron Mountain’s answers to written questions in the lawsuit. The order concerned discovery, not the final merits of Emerson’s claims.
Iron Mountain must provide additional information for some questions. It must identify the people involved in deciding to terminate Emerson and describe their roles; identify the essential functions of Emerson’s 2019 project supervisor position; and answer whether holding that position for Emerson’s return would have been an undue burden during the relevant periods. Depending on those answers, it must provide supporting material or principal facts for related questions. It does not need to respond further to Rog 6.
The court ordered Iron Mountain to amend its responses by September 28, 2021, and denied Emerson’s request for permission to seek attorneys’ fees. Judge Tse also stated that the court’s in-person or video meeting requirement before bringing discovery disputes is mandatory.
The detailed version
- Emerson v. Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-08607
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 9, 2021
Background
This discovery order resolves disputes over Kimberly Emerson’s interrogatories, which are written questions one party sends to another during litigation. The order addresses Iron Mountain Information Management Services, Inc.’s responses to several interrogatories.
Rulings on the interrogatories
- Interrogatory 3: Iron Mountain must answer in part. It must identify the people who participated in the decision to terminate Emerson and describe each person’s role in that decision. It does not have to provide detailed descriptions of each person’s communications about Emerson’s separation from employment. The court stated that Emerson could seek that information through depositions and document requests. - Interrogatory 5: Iron Mountain must amend its response to identify every essential function of the project supervisor position Emerson held in
- A reference to a previously produced job description was insufficient. If Iron Mountain relies on that description, it must confirm that it lists all essential functions and identify any listed responsibilities that were not essential functions. - Interrogatory 6: Iron Mountain need not respond further. The court stated that Emerson could obtain more detail about who did what through depositions and document requests. - Interrogatories 9 and 12: Iron Mountain must amend its responses to state whether, during the identified periods, it would have been an undue burden to hold Emerson’s project supervisor position for her return. The court characterized these as valid contention interrogatories—questions asking a party to state its position on an issue—and found that Iron Mountain had not fully answered them. - Interrogatories 10–11 and 13–14: If Iron Mountain answers “yes” to Interrogatory 9, it must amend its responses to Interrogatories 10 and
- If it answers “yes” to Interrogatory 12, it must amend its responses to Interrogatories 13 and
- For Interrogatories 10 and 13, it need provide only the material or principal supporting facts, not every fact supporting its position.
Deadline and fees
Iron Mountain must comply with the order and amend its responses by September 28, 2021. Emerson’s request for permission to seek attorneys’ fees was denied. The court also stated that its requirement for an in-person or video meet-and-confer before bringing a discovery dispute is mandatory.
Disposition
Judge Alex G. Tse issued the order on September 9, 2021. The order required specified amended discovery responses, permitted no further response to Interrogatory 6, denied Emerson’s request for leave to seek attorneys’ fees, and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.