Pitts v. Southwest Airlines, Co.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSEPH PITTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-06936-TSH
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 29
The parties have a discovery dispute concerning several requests for production. The
Court addresses them as follows.
A. RFPs Set Two
Southwest reports that Pitts served his responses to its second set of RFPs after the
deadline to do so. Ehlers Decl. ¶ 6. This appears to be confirmed by the RFPs, which are dated
May 30, 2025, and the responses, which are dated July 14, 2025. Also, Pitts does not deny this.
Accordingly, the Court generally views objections as having been waived, except that the Court
will not enforce the waiver as to documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work product, or privacy.
Southwest discusses three RFPs from Set Two: 73, 74 and 75. The Court GRANTS
Southwest’s motion to compel as to RFPs 73 and 75 and ORDERS Pitts to produce responsive
documents in his possession, custody or control. As a reminder, “control” means the legal right to
obtain documents, even if Pitts does not currently possess them.
The Court will not enforce RFP 74. The time period of the RFP largely precedes Pitts’
employment with Southwest, and there is no subject matter limitation in the RFP. This makes it
invasive of Pitts’ privacy. Accordingly, Southwest’s motion to compel is DENIED as to RFP 74.
Case 3:24-cv-06936-TSH Document 36 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States
 District Court
Northern District of California
B. RFPs Set Three
Southwest discusses RFPs 78, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94 and 96 in the joint discovery letter brief.
Of these, Pitts addresses RFPs 78, 88, 90, 92. The parties also discuss witness statements.
For RFPs 78, 88 and 92, Southwest complains that Pitts produced screenshots rather than
documents. The Court agrees this is improper and ORDERS Pitts to produce print outs of the
documents.
For RFP 90, it does not appear that Pitts opposes the motion to compel. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS him to produce responsive documents.
Pitts does not discuss RFPs 93, 94 and 96 in the letter brief, but his RFP responses say that
he will produce responsive documents. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS him to produce
documents responsive to these RFPs.
With respect to witness statements, if these take the form of fully executed declarations,
then Pitts is ORDERED to produce them because a signed declaration is a statement of facts by
the witness, not the opinion of counsel. See Infosystems, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 197 F.R.D. 303,
306 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (“[T]he Court questions whether the affidavits themselves are true attorney
work product . . . . An affidavit, after all, purports to be a statement of facts within the personal
knowledge of the witness, and not an expression of the opinion of counsel.”) (emphasis original).
By contrast, if they are not fully executed declarations but instead statements written by Plaintiff’s
counsel or summaries of interviews taken by Plaintiff’s counsel, they are work product and need
not be produced. See O’Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 640, 643 (C.D. Cal.
2003).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-06936-TSH Document 36 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 2