Yee v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao

Filing 54

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 36 Defendant's Motion to Compel and 37 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; and Denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR, HILDA SOLIS, Defendant. ___________________________________/ CHARLOTTE YEE, Plaintiff, No. C-08-4259 MMC (EMC) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Docket Nos. 36, 37) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Having considered the papers filed by the parties and argument of the parties at the hearing on May 13, 2009, the Court orders as follows. Plaintiff shall give a video-taped deposition on May 22, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. at the office of the U.S. Attorney at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. She shall also provide full answers to interrogatories on which Defendant has moved. It is not sufficient to refer to files in this case ­ Defendant is entitled to Plaintiff's position on the evidence. Nor may Plaintiff withhold identities of witnesses known to her. Should she not disclose known witnesses, she may well be precluded from presenting their testimony in this case. As to explaining facts supporting her claims, she must provide in reasonable detail the factual basis of her claims. It is not enough to simply state she is a member of the protected class; that fact alone does not establish a legal claim for e.g. discrimination or harassment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Defendant shall produce documents related to the Sandler investigation because they are relevant to the alleged conduct of Mr. Holden, and Defendant has not asserted or proven an applicable privilege that prevents their disclosure in discovery in this federal case. While Ms. Sandler may be an attorney, she was retained to do an investigation. There is no showing that she was retained to provide legal advice or was acting at the direction of an attorney providing legal advice. Thus, Davis v. City of Seattle, 2007 WL 4166154 (W.D. Wash. 2007), is inapposite. Nor has Defendant presented any facts making the deliberative process privilege applicable. See McPeek v. Ashcroft, 202 F.R.D. 332 (D.D.C. 2001), thus does not apply. Finally, the Defendant has not presented any clear rule or regulation making this EEO investigation by Ms. Sandler confidential and exempt from federal discovery. However, Ms. Sandler's deposition shall not be taken absent a specific showing as to what relevant evidence she is likely to provide in addition to that disclosed by the documents ordered produced herein. As to documents related to the investigation of Stanley Stephenson, Defendant has represented that no such documents refer to supervision or lack thereof or make any recommendations in regard thereto. Defendant shall provide a declaration to that effect. As to Plaintiff's document requests, Defendant shall produce the following documents: · Req. No. 1 ­ Documents to the extent they relate to any alleged assault or physical altercation or refer to Ms. Yee specifically. · · Req. No. 2 ­ All responsive documents. Req. No. 3 ­ Documents to the extent they relate to any alleged assault or physical altercation or refer to Ms. Yee specifically. · Req. No. 6 ­ Documents to the extent they pertain to any mental health or emotional problems during 2006 and 2007. · · · Req. No. 8 ­ All responsive documents. Req. No. 9 ­ All responsive documents. Req. No. 10 ­ Documents to the extent they refer to claims of sexual harassment of emotional or mental health problems of Mr. Holden. · Req. No. 15 ­ Documents to the extent they refer to Ms. Yee.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

·

Req. No. 17 ­ Documents but limited to 2006 and 2007.

Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to all other documents requests is denied. In addition, her motion for sanctions is denied. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 36 and 37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2009 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR, HILDA SOLIS, Defendant. ___________________________________/ CHARLOTTE YEE, Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE No. C-08-4259 MMC (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk. CHARLOTTE YEE (pro se) 2062 Waycross Road Fremont, CA 94539 510/661-0467 Dated: May 14, 2009 ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA ELECTRONIC FILING ("E-FILING")

RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By:

/s/ Leni Doyle Deputy Clerk