United States of America, et al. v. Paksn, Inc., et al Case No. CV 15-09064-SB (AGRx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed May 10, 2022 Counsel Karen Yumi Paik, Kent A. Kawakami, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Rohith Vikram Srinivas, Jessica M. Sarkis, Matthew J. Oster, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Stephen Michael Garcia, Garcia and Artigliere, Long Beach, CA, for United States of America. David Michael Medby, Medby Law APLC, Hermosa Beach, CA, Stephen Michael Garcia, William M. Artigliere, Garcia and Artigliere, Long Beach, CA, Matthew M. Coman, Pro Hac Vice, Garcia and Artigliere, New Orleans, LA, for Trilochan Singh. Benjamin N. Gluck, Naomi S. Solomon, Nicole R. Van Dyk, Shoshana E. Bannett, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg Rhow PC, Alexis A. Wiseley, Los Angeles, CA, for Paksn, Inc., Prema Thekkek, Kayal, Inc., Nadhi, Inc., Oakrheem, Inc., Bayview Care, Inc., Thekkek Health Services, Inc., Aakash, Inc., Nasaky, Inc. Rosenberg, Alicia G., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE UNITED STATES' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Dkt. No. 161) *1 Case is called. Counsel state their appearances. In this false claims act action, Plaintiff United States filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce documents responsive to Document Request No. 9. (Dkt. No. 161.) Defendants filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 173.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 179.) The matter came on for hearing. The court previously addressed Document Request No. 9 in the orders dated January 19 and February 15, 2022. (Dkt. Nos. 133, 152.) Plaintiff has narrowed Document Request No. 9 so that it calls for three categories of documents from personnel files: (1) employment documents, namely employment contracts, job duties, hiring, promotion, performance reviews, and resignation or termination; (2) compensation; and (3) disciplinary matters. Plaintiff has also identified the 16 employees at issue: Joseph Baby, Relator Trilochan Singh, Defendant Prema Thekkek, Ricky Dumdumaya, Regina Raj, Glennda Santos, Evette Sarno, Antony Thekkek, April Trask, Suzette Cheatham, Josie Distor, Ma Teresa Enrile, Nathalie Montijo, Saroo Nibbler, Dolores Nugal and Troy Phantay. Defendants represent that they did not locate any responsive documents for Antony Thekkek or Suzette Cheatham. (Bannett Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendants searched for and produced responsive documents as to categories 1 and 2 for Prema Thekkek and Evette Sarno (except for redactions). (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) Defendants have completed the production from April Trask's file. (Id. ¶ 7.) “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 26(b)(1) includes within its scope “information that could be used to impeach a likely witness.” Advisory Comm. Notes, 2015 Amendment. The Ninth Circuit has similarly stated that, in addition to documents about the merits of a claim or defense, “it is entirely proper to obtain information for other purposes such as cross-examination of adverse witnesses” from personnel files. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975). Defendants object to producing performance reviews and discipline-related documents, and have apparently withheld such documents for at least one witness. (Bannett Decl. ¶ 8.) Documents regarding discipline should not, however, be categorically excluded from discovery. It is certainly conceivable that discipline could involve the type of misconduct alleged in this case. (See, e.g., Thekkek Tr. at 131:21-132:7.) In that event, the documents would likely be responsive to other document requests as well. In addition, documents regarding promotions, demotions, complaints or disciplinary proceedings “pertain to the credibility of witnesses” and “provide a means to compare statements made during depositions to documents maintained by the employer.” Ragge v. MCA/Universal, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995). *2 On balance, the need for the information requested outweighs any privacy interests in disciplinary matters, and the documents can be designated pursuant to a protective order. This case is distinguishable from Waring v. Geodis Logistics LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256776 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2020). In Waring, the document request sought the complete personnel file of an employee, and the court correctly observed that “the complete personnel file is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. at *22. The employee at issue was not a comparator to the plaintiff in his discrimination case and, as a subordinate, his personnel file would have no bearing on the question of whether the employer's reasons for terminating the plaintiff were pretextual. By contrast, the United States in this case seeks specific categories of documents from the personnel files and has made a showing that the 16 identified employees are likely to be significant witnesses as to the claims or defenses in this case. (Motion at 3-9.) On the other hand, the court will limit the request to exclude reviews of employee performance in a medical or clinical setting. For example, a performance review of an employee's marketing or recruitment of medical directors would be responsive and should be produced. As another example, a performance review of a nurse's care of patients need not be produced. Because the documents sought are likely to be hard copy documents located offsite in boxes that may or may not be marked and in more than one warehouse, the court explored at oral argument whether the initial search and production could be more focused. Having considered the answers to the court's questions, the court will grant the motion to compel in part as to certain employees and associated facilities, and deny the motion as to the remainder without prejudice. Specifically, the most critical witnesses appear to be at three facilities – Paksn, Gateway and Hayward. The motion appears to be moot as to April Trask because the production has been completed and as to Suzette Cheatham because no responsive file has been located. IT IS ORDERED that the United States' motion to compel production of documents responsive to Document Request No. 9 as narrowed above is GRANTED IN PART as to Joseph Baby, Relator Trilochan Singh, Defendant Prema Thekkek, Ricky Dumdumaya, Regina Raj, Glennda Santos, Evette Sarno, Antony Thekkek, Nathalie Montijo, and Dolores Nugal. The remainder of the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the United States' ability to renew its request. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall confer regarding an estimated date for completion of the search and production. cc: District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.