Opinion
01 Civ. 0144 (LAK) (RLE)
May 15, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
By letter application to the Court dated April 1, 2002, pro se plaintiff Shahid Tanvir ("Tanvir") sought an order from the Court compelling defendant New York State Banking Department ("the Banking Department") to produce its "application log-in register," "affirmative action forms," and the names of the successful candidates for the positions of Bank Examiner Trainee, for the years 1999 and 2000. Tanvir has argued that since none of the documents produced by defendant identified the ethnic origin of the successful candidates, he is entitled to the names of the candidates, which would allow him to identify persons from the Indian sub-continent based on their surnames.
Hereinafter, the phrases "from the Indian sub-continent" and "South Asian" will be used to denote persons whose origins can be traced to, and those from, the Indian sub-continent.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2001, Tanvir, filed a complaint against the New York State Banking Department and the New York State Department of Civil Service ("Civil Service"), alleging employment discrimination based on race, national origin, and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
On July 19, 2001, both defendants, the Banking Department and the Civil Service, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On December 17, 2001, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation on December 17, 2001, recommending that the complaint be dismissed as against the Civil Service, but denying the motion with respect to the Banking Department, which was adopted by District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on January 10, 2002.
On February 19, 2002, the undersigned conducted a telephone conference with Tanvir and the Banking Department to discuss discovery-related issues. During the conference, Tanvir requested the names of the successful applicants for the 1999 and 2000 Bank Examiner Trainee I positions, for which he had interviewed. Tanvir argued that because the documents produced by the Banking Department only grouped the applicants in the broad categorizations of "Black," "White," "Asian or Pacific Islander," and "Hispanic," it was impossible to determine the national origin of the applicants. He contended that by reading the applicants' names, he would be able to identify which applicants' national origins could be traced to the Indian sub-continent. The Banking Department opposed the request on the ground that the production of the information would violate the applicants' privacy, and that Tanvir's conclusions would be speculative.
The undersigned found that Tanvir's purported reasons for requesting the names — to determine whether any of the successful candidates were from the Indian sub-continent — is relevant to Tanvir's claims. The Court noted, however, that identifying such candidates as being South Asian would seem to support defendant's position rather than plaintiff's. The Court concluded that it would be unfair to allow plaintiff to continue without this information if the defendant could later present evidence of national origin to undermine plaintiff's claim. The Court, therefore, found that the Banking Department would either have to determine if any of the candidates were from the Indian sub-continent or otherwise be precluded from presenting evidence that anyone hired for the Banking Examiner Trainee I positions was from the Indian sub-continent. The parties were directed to attempt agreement on a suitable stipulation.
In response to the Court's rulings, Tanvir wrote a letter dated February 26, 2002, to Judge Kaplan appealing this Court's rulings from the February 19, 2002 conference. Also in response to the Court's rulings, the Banking Department offered Tanvir a stipulation dated February 27, 2002. That stipulation stated, in relevant part, that
The letter submissions of the parties refer to a February 6, 2002, pretrial conference. The records of this court, however indicate that the rulings at issue were actually made during a telephone conference that occurred on February 19, 2002
because the Banking Department can not [sic] determine from the affirmative action data collected by Civil Service whether any person listed in the Asian or Pacific Islander category is from the Indian sub-continent, since the category is not defined any further into country of origin, the Banking Department will not seek to introduce into evidence the fact that someone hired from the Banking Examiner Trainee I groups listed above is from the Indian sub-continent.
On March 18, 2002, Judge Kaplan issued an order stating that it did not have a sufficient record before it to rule on Tanvir's appeal, but that Tanvir could renew his application to the undersigned on papers and obtain a written ruling. On April 1, 2002, Tanvir wrote a letter to the Court seeking an order compelling the Banking Department to produce its "application log-in register," "affirmative action forms," and the names of the successful candidates for the positions of Bank Examiner Trainee, for the years 1999 and 2000.
In a response dated April 12, 2002, the Banking Department opposed Tanvir's request. First, according to the Banking Department, the "log-in register" which does not indicate the race or national origin of applicants, contains the names of several hundred applicants, not just those who were hired. The information contained in the register consists of the applicant's name, address, social security number, exam score, date of the examination, and the date that the examination score expires. Production of the register is not warranted, it argues, because Tanvir has already been provided with the application forms and resumes of the successful applicants, with only their names and addresses redacted to protect their privacy.
Second, the Banking Department argues that Tanvir's request for affirmative action forms constitutes a new request, made after the discovery deadline. Furthermore, the Banking Department argues that the forms are submitted to the Civil Service Department on a voluntary basis after persons are hired, and do not contain the information sought by Tanvir — the country of origin or ethnic origin of individuals. Rather, the descriptions contained on the forms indicate the much broader categories of "Black," "White," "Asian or Pacific Islander," and "Hispanic," and this information has already been produced to Tanvir. Moreover, the Banking Department argues that Tanvir would only be speculating as to the national origin of the individuals based on their names. Last, the Banking Department has withdrawn the February 27, 2002 stipulation it had offered, and opposes the production of the successful candidates' names, arguing that this Court previously denied the same request.
On April 22, 2002, Tanvir replied to the Banking Department's response, asking the Court to order the production of the application log-in register and affirmative action forms for the years 1999 and 2000. Tanvir stated that the stipulation offered by the Banking Department "was meaningless, unless it was determined that whether [sic] the persons from the Indian sub-continent actually applied for the positions in question."
III. DISCUSSION
Discovery requests, such as Tanvir's application, are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 26(b)(1),
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
In the instant case, this Court finds that Tanvir's request for the names of the successful candidates for the positions of Bank Examiner Trainee for the years 1999 and 2000 is relevant to his claims of discrimination. Tanvir claims that he is able to identify which persons are from the Indian sub-continent based on their surnames. Although surnames are not a foolproof method of identifying national origin, this information appears calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that applicants who were hired for those positions were South Asian. Although the discovery of such evidence would appear to be more beneficial for the Banking Department than for Tanvir, the information is relevant to Tanvir's claims of national origin discrimination. The Banking Department's objections based on the privacy of the applicants and the speculative nature of Tanvir's endeavor, do not warrant curtailment of Rule 26(b)'s broad scope. Therefore, Tanvir's request for the production of the names of the successful candidates for the positions of Bank Examiner Trainee for the years 1999 and 2000 is GRANTED, and the Banking Department is ordered to produce these names to Tanvir by May 24, 2002.
The efficacy of such an endeavor is undoubtedly a function of the particular nation at issue. In any case. Tanvir need not establish that he will be infallible so long as the information provides a rational basis for focusing further inquiries.
Tanvir's remaining requests for the production of the application log-in register and affirmative action forms is DENIED. Whereas the Court has already ordered the production of the names of successful candidates, the Court finds that the other information contained in these documents has either already been produced to Tanvir (such as the sorting of applicants into the broader categories of "Black," "White," "Asian or Pacific Islander," and "Hispanic") or is not relevant to Tanvir's claims (such as the applicants' addresses, social security numbers, and exams scores). Moreover, the log-in register includes individuals who were not qualified or who did not complete the application process. Because there is no indication that legitimate applicants can be factored out, information about individuals on the list cannot be shown to be relevant.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
(1) Tanvir's request for the production of the names of the successful candidates for the positions of Bank Examiner Trainee for the years 1999 and 2000 is GRANTED, and the Banking Department is ordered to produce these names to Tanvir by May 24, 2002;
(2) Tanvir's requests for the production of the application log-in register and affirmative action forms is DENIED; and
(3) Following the Banking Department's production of names of successful candidates to Tanvir, all discovery in this matter is concluded.