Harrison v. Whole Foods Market

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
PATRINA HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 20-cv-04867-JSW (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 67
In ECF No. 67, the parties raise several discovery disputes. The Court addresses them as
follows.
A. Interrogatories
1. Rogs 2 and 8
Rog 2 asked: “IDENTIFY all witnesses who have knowledge of all facts supporting
YOUR allegations in Paragraphs 16 and 17 of YOUR COMPLAINT that YOU were
discriminated against based on YOUR race on December 24, 2019, at the FRANKLIN STORE.”
Rog 8 asked: “IDENTIFY all witnesses who have knowledge of all facts supporting YOUR
allegations in Paragraph 26 of YOUR COMPLAINT that DEFENDANT’S actions were
intentional, willful, malicious, and/or done with reckless disregard on December 24, 2019, at
FRANKLIN STORE.” In response to both rogs, Plaintiff described two people. Defendant argues
that “Plaintiff must provide complete and accurate responses,” ECF No. 67 at 2. Plaintiff argues
that “Defendant’s demand for a final, exhaustive witness list at this stage is premature.” Id. at 3.
Defendant is not seeking a trial witness list. It is seeking the identification of witnesses
who have knowledge concerning the facts alleged in paragraphs 16, 17 and 26 of Plaintiff’s
Case 4:20-cv-04867-JSW Document 82 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 4

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
complaint. This is relevant and discoverable information. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s
motion and ORDERS Plaintiff to provide complete answers to rogs 2 and 8 within 30 days.
2. Rog 10
Rog 10 asked:
With respect to YOUR denial of any Request for Admission served
concurrently herewith, please:
a) Set forth in detail all facts upon which YOU base YOUR denial;
b) IDENTIFY all witnesses who have knowledge of all facts
supporting YOUR denial;
c) IDENTIFY all documents that support YOUR denial;
d) Describe the reasonable inquiry YOU conducted before denying
the request;
e) If YOUR denial is based on lack of information or knowledge,
explain in detail the efforts YOU made to obtain such information or
knowledge.
Defendant argues that “Plaintiff must serve further amended responses to Interrogatory No.
10, responding completely and fully as to each individual RFA she denies.” ECF No. 67 at 3.
Plaintiff responds: “As to Interrogatory No. 10, Plaintiff has provided factual bases for her denials
and identified documents and witnesses supporting her position.” Id.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has partially answered rog 10 in connection with her denials
of RFAs 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10, but these partial answers are incomplete. For example, generic
references to “photographs of injuries, victim impact statement, and medical/injury records” do
not count as identifying documents. The response must identify particular documents. Nearly all
of the items Plaintiff lists under “5. Supporting Evidence” are generic references to categories of
things, not particular documents or evidence. (The exceptions are “Store security guard” and
“store manager,” since those are references to specific people, and there is no reason to believe
Plaintiff knows their names.) Also, the phrase “and others with knowledge” is not a sufficient
identification of witnesses. Accordingly, for these RFAs, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient
answers to parts a, b and c of rog 10. She also did not answer parts d and e of rog 10 for these
RFAs at all. And she did not answer any part of rog 10 concerning her denials of RFAs 1, 4, 5 and
Case 4:20-cv-04867-JSW Document 82 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 4

3
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
6.
The Court also agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has waived her right to privacy
concerning documents that are directly relevant to her claimed damages. Of course, it is up to
Plaintiff to state what her claimed damages are.
Finally, Plaintiff’s rog responses must be truthful. Therefore, for example, her responses
to rogs 6 and 10 should not say opposite things about the existence of medical records.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel and ORDERS Plaintiff
to provide a complete response to rog 10 within 30 days.
B. Privilege Log
Plaintiff’s response to RFP 1 makes clear that she is withholding documents based on an
assertion of privilege. Her privilege log is at ECF No. 80-1. Defendant says Plaintiff cannot
invoke the attorney-client privilege because she is pro se. Plaintiff says she is claiming work
product protection.
Plaintiff is correct that work product protection is not limited to documents prepared by
attorneys, but she misunderstands what courts mean by that. What we mean is:
At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes
of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can
analyze and prepare his client's case. But the doctrine is an intensely
practical one, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary
system. One of those realities is that attorneys often must rely on the
assistance of investigators and other agents in the compilation of
materials in preparation for trial. It is therefore necessary that the
doctrine protect material prepared by agents for the attorney as well
as those prepared by the attorney himself.
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238-39 (1975).
Here, with no attorney in the picture, Plaintiff has not established that she, or anyone else,
prepared the documents on her privilege log as agents for an attorney. Accordingly she has failed
to establish the applicability of the work product doctrine. The Court therefore OVERRULES
her claim of privilege and ORDERS Plaintiff to produce the withheld documents within 30 days.
C. Subpoenas
Defendant says “it is not clear whether Plaintiff served third-party subpoenas or not.” ECF
No. 67 at 5. Plaintiff says she “has not served any third-party subpoenas to date.” Id. at 6.
Case 4:20-cv-04867-JSW Document 82 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 4

4
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
Accordingly, the Court sees no need to take action on this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 5, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:20-cv-04867-JSW Document 82 Filed 11/05/25 Page 4 of 4