Tanaka v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Todd Tanaka served United Parcel Service, Inc. with a request to enter and inspect the company’s Richmond facility, including taking still photographs and video. The request covered “all areas within the premises where work is performed.” United Parcel Service objected, and Tanaka moved to compel the inspection.

Tanaka argued that an important issue was whether he could have returned to positions in Smalls Sort or Revenue Recovery, or continued working as a “bag stringer” in Smalls Sort, given his restrictions. He acknowledged that United Parcel Service had produced documents about job requirements and photographs of some work areas.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that inspecting a party’s premises can impose greater burdens and risks than producing documents, so the requesting party must show why an inspection is necessary. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, an inspection request must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner and must identify the items or categories to be inspected with reasonable particularity.

The court found that Tanaka had not justified the need for an inspection. The request was overly broad because it had no time limitation and covered all work areas. It was also unclear what relevant information Tanaka expected to obtain or how he could obtain it through a reasonable inspection. The court further found that the requested information could be obtained through other discovery methods, including written job descriptions and photographs. Under Rule 26(b)(1), the court concluded that any benefit from the inspection would be outweighed by the burden on United Parcel Service’s operations and privacy concerns.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse denied Tanaka’s motion to compel a site inspection of United Parcel Service’s facility. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.