U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco District Office v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc., No. 4:2023mc80112 - Document 28 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 27 STIPULATION Re 20 MOTION to Intervene and For Protective Order.**This Order GRANTS 20 MOTION to Intervene. *** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 9/15/2023. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco District Of...Industry Specialists, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ROBERTA STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA) MARIKO M. ASHLEY, SBN 311897 (CA) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0943 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 mariko.ashley@eeoc.gov 11 MAY CHE, SBN 4255378 (NY) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 576-3011 may.che@eeoc.gov 12 Attorneys for Applicant EEOC 8 9 10 Doc. 28 MICHELLE FINKEL FERBER, #149929 mferber@ferberlaw.com CONNOR M. DAY, #233245 cday@ferberlaw.com FERBER LAW, A Professional Corporation 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 385 San Ramon, California 94583 Tel: (925) 355-9800 Fax: (925) 263-1676 Attorneys for Respondent Security Industry Specialists, Inc. CDF LABOR LAW LLP Alison L. Tsao, State Bar No. 198250 atsao@cdflaborlaw.com Candace DesBaillets, State Bar No. 315284 cdesbaillets@cdflaborlaw.com 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-3233 Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor Apple Inc. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISION 17 18 19 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 22 23 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND CLARIFYING SCOPE OF SUBPOENA SF-22-09 Applicant, 20 21 Case No.: 4:23-mc-80112-HSG vs. SECURITY INDUSTRY SPECIALISTS, INC., Respondent. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER 1 Case No. 4:23-mc-80112 HSG Dockets.Justia.com 1 STIPULATION 2 This stipulation is entered into by Applicant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3 (“EEOC”), Respondent Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (“SIS”), and Proposed-Intervenor Apple 4 Inc. (“Apple”), collectively, the “Parties.” 5 6 WHEREAS, the EEOC filed an Application for Order Enforcing Administrative Subpoena SF-22-09 against SIS on April 10, 2023. (ECF No. 1); 7 WHEREAS, on June 28, 2023, the Court granted the EEOC’s Application to Enforce 8 Administrative Subpoena and ordered SIS to produce documents within 14 days (by July 12, 2023) 9 and certify that it produced all documents in Respondent’s possession, custody, and control 10 responsive to Subpoena SF-22-09, except for documents detailed in Request J. (ECF No. 19); 11 WHEREAS, Apple filed a Motion to Intervene and Application for Protective Order 12 (“Motion”) on July 12, 2023 (ECF No. 20), which sought a protective order for certain information 13 to be produced by SIS which it asserted contains Apple’s sensitive, proprietary and/or confidential 14 information; 15 16 WHEREAS, SIS produced documents on July 26 and 31, 2023 but withheld additional documents pending Apple’s Motion; 17 18 WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred to resolve the issues raised in Apple’s Motion. (ECF No. 21, 25); 19 20 WHEREAS, the hearing for Apple’s Motion is currently set for October 12, 2023. (ECF No. 26); 21 THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that, subject to Court approval: 22 1. Apple filed its Motion to protect its sensitive, confidential, and/or proprietary 23 information. Apple shall be permitted to intervene in this subpoena enforcement action to effectuate 24 the full and efficient resolution of the EEOC’s subpoena enforcement action, as stipulated by the 25 Parties; 26 2. SIS may redact information which the EEOC has determined is not necessary to 27 advance its investigation of the charges of age discrimination filed by Mark Gonzales (550-2020- 28 01138) and Cynthia Tiberend (No. 550-2020-01138) at this time, as follows: STIPULATION AND ORDER 2 Case No. 4:23-mc-80112 HSG 1 a. SIS may redact the street address (including city, state, and zip code) of a 2 single Apple business site whose location is confidential and not publicly known, provided 3 that SIS includes overlay text on the redactions with a pseudonym so that the EEOC can 4 readily identify that the redaction references the confidential site and can distinguish it from 5 other locations. To clarify, SIS may not redact the addresses of any other Apple locations, 6 including Apple Retail Stores, Apple headquarters, and publicly known Apple corporate 7 offices. The EEOC has provided a sample of the proposed redaction method to the Parties, 8 which can be done in software programs including Adobe Acrobat, attached as Exhibit A. 9 b. SIS may redact the dollar amounts of actual or proposed payment rates made 10 by Apple to SIS, as long as those redactions do not include information about the payment of 11 wages to SIS employees or the payments concerning the COVID-19 Screener program, 12 including any temporary pay increase made to COVID-19 Screeners the amount of any 13 payment rate intended to cover the temporary pay increase made to COVID-19 Screeners. 14 3. Apple may direct SIS to stamp documents that it believes contain information 15 protected from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. § 16 552(b)(4), consistent with 29 C.F.R § 1610.19(b) (predisclosure notification procedures for 17 confidential commercial information). 18 4. It is the EEOC’s position that the Application for Protective Order is premature. 19 Apple will withdraw its application for protective order at this time. See E.E.O.C. v. Anna’s Linens 20 Co., No. C 06-80009 MISC MMC (WDB), 2006 WL 1329548 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006), report and 21 recommendation adopted sub nom. E.E.O.C. v. Anna’s Linens, Inc., No. C 06-80009 MISC MMC 22 (WDB), 2006 WL 1876625 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2006); E.E.O.C. v. Kidder Peabody, Peabody & Co. 23 Inc., No. M18-304, 1992 WL 73344, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 1992); Valley Indus. Servs., Inc. v. 24 E.E.O.C., 570 F. Supp. 902, 905 (N.D. Cal. 1983). 25 5. SIS must produce all outstanding documents and information to the EEOC within 14 26 days of the Court’s Order, and at the same time certify that it produced all documents in its 27 possession, custody, and control responsive to Subpoena SF-22-09, except for documents detailed in 28 Request J and redactions detailed in Paragraph 2 (a) & (b), above. STIPULATION AND ORDER 3 Case No. 4:23-mc-80112 HSG 1 6. 2 calendar. 3 The October 12, 2023 hearing date and all related briefing deadlines will be taken off IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 4 5 Date: September 15, 2023 /s/ Mariko M. Ashley Mariko M. Ashley Attorney for Applicant U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Date: September 15, 2023 /s/ Connor M. Day _______________________ Connor M. Day Attorney for Respondent Security Industry Specialists, Inc. Date: September 15, 2023 /s/ Alison L. Tsao_________________________ Alison L. Tsao Attorney for Proposed Intervenor Apple Inc. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER 4 Case No. 4:23-mc-80112 HSG ORDER 1 2 Based on the foregoing stipulation of the Applicant U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 3 Commission, Respondent Security Industry Specialists, Inc. and Proposed-Intervenor Apple Inc., 4 and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT 5 1. Apple’s Motion to Intervene in this subpoena enforcement is GRANTED to 6 effectuate the full and efficient resolution of this subpoena enforcement action, as stipulated by the 7 Parties; 8 9 10 2. SIS may redact the following information which is not necessary to the EEOC’s investigation of the charges of age discrimination filed by Mark Gonzales (550-2020-01138) and Cynthia Tiberend (No. 550-2020-01138) at this time: 11 a. SIS may redact the street address (including city, state, and zip code) of a 12 single Apple business site whose location is confidential and not publicly known, provided 13 that SIS includes overlay text on the redactions with a pseudonym so that the EEOC can 14 readily identify that the redaction references the confidential site and can distinguish it from 15 other locations. The redactions must be done in a manner consistent with Exhibit A. To 16 clarify, SIS may not redact the addresses of any other Apple locations, including Apple 17 Retail Stores, Apple headquarters, and publicly known Apple corporate offices. 18 b. SIS may redact the dollar amounts of actual or proposed payment rates made 19 by Apple to SIS, as long as those redactions do not include information about the payment of 20 wages to SIS employees or payments concerning the COVID-19 Screener program, including 21 any temporary pay increase made to COVID-19 Screeners or the amount of any payment rate 22 intended to cover the temporary pay increase made to COVID-19 Screeners. 23 3. Apple may direct SIS to stamp documents that it believes contain information 24 protected from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. § 25 552(b)(4), consistent with 29 C.F.R § 1610.19(b) (predisclosure notification procedures for 26 confidential commercial information). 27 28 4. Apple will withdraw its application for protective order. See E.E.O.C. v. Anna’s Linens Co., No. C 06-80009 MISC MMC (WDB), 2006 WL 1329548 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006), STIPULATION AND ORDER 5 Case No. 4:23-mc-80112 HSG 1 report and recommendation adopted sub nom. E.E.O.C. v. Anna’s Linens, Inc., No. C 06-80009 2 MISC MMC (WDB), 2006 WL 1876625 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2006); E.E.O.C. v. Kidder Peabody, 3 Peabody & Co. Inc., No. M18-304, 1992 WL 73344, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 1992); Valley Indus. 4 Servs., Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 570 F. Supp. 902, 905 (N.D. Cal. 1983). 5 5. SIS must produce all outstanding documents and information to the EEOC within 14 6 days of the Court’s Order, and at the same time certify that it produced all documents in its 7 possession, custody, and control responsive to Subpoena SF-22-09, except for documents detailed in 8 Request J and redactions detailed in Paragraph 2 (a) & (b). 9 10 6. The October 12, 2023 hearing date and all related briefing deadlines are hereby VACATED. 11 12 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 9/15/2023 _________________________________ HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. U.S. District Court Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER 6 Case No. 4:23-mc-80112 HSG
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
