Natera discovery-sanctions bid denied; personal-phone control remains unresolved

A federal magistrate judge in Northern California denied Melinda Ann Clark’s request for sanctions against Natera on October 27 in a dispute involving a workplace video on employees’ personal phones. Judge Alex Tse found that Clark had not established a violated discovery order or bad faith. The ruling did not decide whether Natera had possession, custody or control of those phones, and it did not resolve Clark’s underlying employment claims. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

Clark challenged Natera’s stated reason for firing her and alleged that a cellphone video undermined the company’s account of an incident at an awards event. According to the order, an HR official initially testified that she received no response when she asked colleagues for relevant videos or photographs. Later discovery showed that a colleague had texted her a video that night. The official acknowledged receiving it but said she had overlooked it during a hectic investigation and had not considered it in reaching her recommendation. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

Clark sought either a default, an instruction foreclosing Natera’s stated reason for termination, or instructions identifying discovery misconduct and false testimony, plus fees. The court rejected those requests. It found the HR official’s testimony inaccurate, but concluded that the record did not establish deliberate falsehood by a preponderance of the evidence. The court noted the explanation offered and uncertainty about a motive to conceal the video; it did not certify that explanation as true. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

Natera had taken the position that employees’ personal phones were outside its possession, custody or control, identified employees who might hold responsive material, and left Clark to subpoena them. Clark had not challenged that position through the court’s discovery-dispute process. The judge therefore found no established violation of the employment-case disclosure order supporting sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). He expressly left the company’s control position open to challenge. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

The order also emphasized that both sides had the video, that critical evidence had not been destroyed, and that fact discovery remained open until December 18. The court indicated it would be amenable to a request to reopen the HR official’s deposition. A motion concerning her deposition errata remained for separate decision, and the denial of sanctions did not prevent Clark from seeking to impeach her at trial. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs on the sanctions motion. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

Analysis. The practical distinction is between asking the court to decide a collection obligation and asking it to punish an established violation. The denial cannot fairly be described as permission for employers to omit personal-phone evidence whenever an employee owns the device. Nor does an inaccurate discovery account, by itself, prove the bad faith required for the inherent-authority sanctions sought here. Those questions depend on the procedural record and evidence the court actually addressed. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

The report uses the complete thirteen-page sanctions order, which CourtListener labels with an unknown publication status. The actual video, depositions and exhibits were not independently examined. The saved October 28 CourtListener docket and history checks are limited to available indexed records and do not establish the absence of later rulings, objections or review. The article reports this motion’s result, not a finding about the ultimate merits of Clark’s termination dispute. Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.

Melinda Ann Clark v. Natera, Inc.. District Court, N.D. California. 3:26-cv-00892. Filed 2026-10-27. Unknown.

AI-assisted reporting based on court records retrieved through CourtListener. This analysis is produced by eDiscovery Decoder; it is not reviewed or endorsed by Free Law Project.