Kigasari v. Burrows
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-01521
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Kigasari v. Burrows: Judge Kim granted Burrows’s motion to compel discovery about Kigasari’s later employment.
Malihe Kigasari must produce responsive documents concerning the end of her employment or relationship with San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley, by February 11, 2022.
What happened
In Kigasari v. Burrows, Malihe Kigasari alleges that Charlotte A. Burrows discriminated against her and retaliated against her in connection with her employment at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Burrows sought documents about whether Kigasari’s employment or relationship with San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley ended. Kigasari argued that the requests did not apply because she was not involuntarily terminated, and also raised privacy, vagueness, overbreadth, and relevance objections.
The court found the requests relevant to possible mitigation of damages and other potential evidence, and held that Kigasari had waived her privacy objection by not raising it in her discovery responses. Judge Kim granted Burrows’s motion to compel and ordered Kigasari to produce responsive documents by February 11, 2022.
The detailed version
- Kigasari v. Burrows · No. 4:20-cv-01521
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
Malihe Kigasari alleges that Charlotte A. Burrows discriminated against her based on sex, gender, gender non-conformity, sex stereotyping, sexual orientation, national origin, race, and age. She also alleges retaliation. The claims arise under federal employment-discrimination and age-discrimination statutes. Kigasari alleges that her employment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ended through “constructive early retirement.”
Discovery dispute
Burrows sought documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 41, 45, and 46. The requests concerned any termination of Kigasari’s employment at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley, as well as any termination of her relationship with the University of California, Berkeley.
Kigasari responded that she was not terminated by either institution and therefore had no responsive documents. She also objected that the requests were vague, ambiguous, overbroad, duplicative, irrelevant, and invaded her privacy. In the joint letter brief, she argued that “termination” should be understood to mean involuntary termination or termination by an employer.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Kigasari’s narrow interpretation of “termination,” concluding that the requests should not be read as limited to employer-initiated or involuntary termination. The court also held that Kigasari waived her privacy objection because she did not assert that objection in her discovery responses.
The court explained that discovery is broader than the evidence ultimately admissible at trial. It found the requested information relevant to Burrows’s asserted defense that the information could bear on mitigation of damages because Kigasari allegedly resigned from two jobs after her EEOC employment ended. Burrows also argued that the information might show a pattern and practice of behavior potentially admissible under the federal evidence rules. The court left the question of trial admissibility for the presiding judge.
Disposition
Judge Sallie Kim granted Burrows’s motion to compel and ordered Kigasari to produce responsive documents by February 11, 2022. The order resolved the discovery dispute; it did not decide the underlying discrimination or retaliation claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.