Sadare v. Bosch Automotive Service Solutions Inc.

Background

Adebowale Sadare asserted claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act for reprisal, retaliation, disability discrimination, and failure to accommodate. He alleged that Bosch employed him from February 2014 until terminating his employment on December 22, 2016. He also alleged that Bosch agreed to sponsor his permanent-residency application, later declined to extend his H-1B visa, withdrew that sponsorship, and terminated his employment after he complained about disability-related treatment and requested accommodations.

Sadare moved to compel discovery of four unredacted emails, or alternatively to have the court review the emails privately. Before the hearing, the parties resolved their dispute over one email. The remaining dispute involved the October 26, December 1, and December 7, 2016 email chains. Bosch argued that the redacted portions were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were not relevant to Sadare’s claims. The court previously ordered Bosch to submit the emails for private review.

Legal standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery generally covers nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. Information may be discoverable even if it might not ultimately be admissible at trial. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party may ask the court to order another party to provide requested discovery.

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications made for obtaining legal advice. The party asserting the privilege has the burden of establishing its factual basis. In the corporate setting, the Eighth Circuit’s test requires Bosch to show, among other things, that the communication was made to obtain legal advice, at the direction of a corporate superior, within the employee’s job duties, and was shared only with people who needed to know its contents or would act on the advice.

Analysis

The court found the emails relevant. Sadare alleged that Bosch retaliated against him by refusing to submit his visa-extension paperwork, withdrawing its permanent-residency sponsorship, and terminating his employment. The court concluded that an employer’s possible refusal to extend a work visa or sponsor permanent residency after an employee reports discrimination, identifies a disability, or requests an accommodation might discourage a reasonable worker from engaging in that protected conduct. The court also rejected Bosch’s argument that possible trial inadmissibility justified withholding the emails because relevant information may still be discoverable.

The court denied Bosch’s oral request for 60 additional days of immigration-related discovery. It explained that Bosch had not properly asked for that relief by motion and that the record before the court was incomplete.

The court then rejected Bosch’s privilege assertions for each remaining email. No attorney was a sender or recipient of the emails. The court recognized that some communications between corporate employees can be privileged even when no attorney is included, but Bosch still had to satisfy the corporate privilege requirements.

For the October 26 email, the redacted material consisted of a narrow question from Thomas Knapp about Sadare’s immigration status and an answer from Brenda Scherwitz and another human-resources representative. Bosch did not show that Knapp asked the question to obtain legal advice, acted at a superior’s direction, or needed the information to perform his duties or make a decision. The court also found no evidence that the question related to settlement discussions. The court therefore granted the motion as to that email.

For the December 1 email, Bosch described the redacted material as a discussion of legal advice. After reviewing it, the court found that the material did not contain legal advice. It described Sadare’s conduct, the timing of a call with a nonlegal Bosch group, and a date for a later discussion. Bosch also failed to show that Knapp and Marco Kempin needed to know information about settlement discussions or could act on those discussions. The court granted the motion insofar as it sought production of that email.

For the December 7 email, Bosch argued that Knapp and Kempin were conveying information from outside immigration counsel about Sadare’s immigration status, including the expiration of his H-1B term. The court noted that Bosch had already disclosed Sadare’s visa-expiration information in another email and had not shown that Knapp or Kempin needed to know the redacted information or were involved in decisions about Sadare’s immigration status. Bosch also did not show that the material related to settlement discussions. The court granted the motion insofar as it sought production of that email.

Disposition

The court’s order states that Sadare’s Motion to Compel Discovery was GRANTED. It ordered Bosch Automotive Service Solutions Inc., Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC, Robert Bosch LLC, and Robert Bosch North America Corporation to produce unredacted copies of the three identified email exhibits by October 8, 2021, unless the defendants filed objections to the order.