Opinion
23-cv-00067-AGT
07-21-2023
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Plaintiff, v. TESLA MOTORS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL
RE: DKT. NO. 80
Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge
George Jarvis Austin has renewed his motion to compel Tesla to produce his “personnel file.” Dkt. 80 at 2. In response, Tesla asserts that Austin was a third-party contractor, not a Tesla employee, and that “no such ‘personnel file' exists.” Dkt. 86-1, Kim Decl. ¶ 5.
The Court cannot order Tesla to produce a “personnel file” that doesn't exist. But if Tesla has records of any kind related to Austin's work as a Tesla contractor, even if not part of a formal “personnel file,” Tesla must produce those records. They are responsive to Austin's discovery request. By August 4, 2023, Tesla must produce all non-privileged records in its possession, custody, or control that relate to Austin's work at Tesla.
* * *
At this time, the Court will not order Austin, as Tesla has requested, “to stop sending any further communications directly to Tesla or its employees” while the case is pending. Dkt. 86 at 3. The record reflects that Austin has sent numerous emails to Tesla employees. See Kim Decl., Exs. 1-5. But Tesla hasn't persuaded the Court that the requested relief-an order that would prohibit a pro se plaintiff from contacting a corporate defendant's employees during the plaintiff's case-would be appropriate. If Tesla intends to pursue this relief, it will need to file a noticed motion, with factual and legal support.
IT IS SO ORDERED.