Granberry v. Jet Blue Airways

Citations: 228 F.R.D. 647; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093; 2005 WL 1330727Docket: No. C-04-0845 JSW (EMC)

Court: District Court, N.D. California; May 31, 2005; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Shawn Granberry's motion to compel documents from Defendant Jet Blue Airways has been partially granted and partially denied by the Court. Granberry, a former station supervisor, claims his termination was racially motivated and not due to alleged failures in reporting equipment damage or incidents, as Jet Blue asserts. The Court evaluated Granberry's four document requests concerning Jet Blue's safety record, damaged equipment reports, station incident reports, and an incident involving another employee.

The Court finds that Granberry has established the relevance of requests for damaged equipment reports and station incident reports, as these pertain directly to the reasons given for his termination. The initial claim by Jet Blue for his dismissal was based on failure to file reports, which Granberry argues was later altered to a failure to verbally notify his supervisor. This change in rationale could indicate that Jet Blue's stated reasons for firing him were pretextual and discriminatory.

However, the broader request for all documents reflecting Jet Blue's safety record from 2001 to 2003 lacks demonstrated relevance. Jet Blue contends that Granberry's termination was unrelated to any failure to submit written reports, emphasizing that the dismissal was due to his failure to notify his supervisor about the incidents. The Court's conclusions align with the liberal relevance criteria under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), allowing some discovery while denying broader requests lacking sufficient relevance.

Jet Blue faces challenges in its defense as Mr. Granberry asserts he was terminated due to his failure to provide written reports, which may indicate Jet Blue's motive and state of mind. Despite the conditional relevance of these reports, the Court finds them pertinent for discovery purposes. However, the production of documents, specifically damaged equipment reports and station incident reports, may impose an undue burden on Jet Blue, especially since Mr. Granberry's requests encompass over 1,700 documents. The Court directs the parties to confer on the scope of production, focusing on the limited relevance of the requested documents and the potential burden on Jet Blue.

Additionally, Jet Blue claims that the requested documents are protected under the self-critical analysis privilege, which it must establish as the proponent. The Court emphasizes that the federal law of privilege will apply, as federal law governs in cases involving both federal and state claims. Notably, the Ninth Circuit has not recognized the self-critical analysis privilege, making its application in this case speculative. The Court references previous cases indicating that such a privilege has not been definitively accepted or rejected, but its recognition remains uncertain in the Ninth Circuit.

The case Morgan v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. highlights uncertainty regarding the existence of a federal self-critical analysis privilege, particularly in employment discrimination claims under Title VII. While some district courts have acknowledged this privilege, an equal or greater number have denied its existence or its application to specific documents. No circuit court has explicitly recognized the privilege, and its validity is further questioned following the Supreme Court’s ruling in University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, which declined to recognize a common law privilege for confidential peer review materials. The Court in University of Pennsylvania suggested that such privileges could obstruct the enforcement of Title VII. Jet Blue's argument that the case should be viewed as a 'hybrid' involving safety-related documents rather than standard employment issues was rejected, with the Court emphasizing that access to relevant documents is crucial for enforcing Title VII. Additionally, Jet Blue failed to demonstrate that the reports in question stemmed from a critical self-analysis, a necessary condition for the privilege to apply. The airline did not provide evidence that the reports contained subjective evaluations instead of purely objective facts, which is essential for establishing the privilege.

Even if a privilege were applicable, defendants must disclose factual information in reports, particularly concerning the cause or circumstances of accidents, as established in Morgan. In employment discrimination cases, anecdotal statements from employee surveys are not protected, as they do not reveal self-criticism or management views, per Johnson. Reports related to damaged equipment and station incidents are deemed objective, primarily reporting accidents or safety issues. Jet Blue's Office of Safety Manual supports this, noting that such reports are intended to enhance safety, making it unlikely the airline would limit reporting due to concerns about discovery, as indicated in Dowling and Tice.

Jet Blue has not proven that these reports were prepared with an expectation of confidentiality. The manual explicitly states that ramp irregularity reports are “not confidential.” Although Jet Blue claims limited distribution of the reports, this does not eliminate the possibility of external sharing. The absence of a confidentiality pledge in the manual further undermines their claim.

The Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Granberry's motion to compel, ordering the parties to meet and confer within five days. No ruling is made regarding documents related to an incident involving employee Patrick Trainer pushing a Jet Blue airplane into a Southwest airplane; parties should discuss the production of relevant reports during their meeting. Jet Blue’s reference to Federal Rule of Evidence 407 is misplaced, as this rule governs admissibility, not discovery. Therefore, requested discovery may still be relevant and permissible, and the standard for admissibility at trial is more stringent than that for pretrial discovery, allowing for the possibility of discovering admissible evidence through initially inadmissible material.