Bohnert v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco et al

Filing 49

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES; GRANTING 48 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Hon. William H. Orrick. Records dating back to 2004 are sufficient in this case. Once those records are reviewed, defendant can renew its request for earlier records if the reviewed records demonstrate that earlier records are material. Given the sensitive nature of the documents at issue, the "first look" procedure proposed by plaintiff is appropriate and shall be employed. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KIMBERLY BOHNERT,

7

Case No. 14-cv-02854-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP
OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 46, 47, 48

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES; GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

12
The parties have filed joint letter briefs addressing discovery disputes regarding the scope

13
14

of (i) requests for production propounded by plaintiff on defendant and (ii) subpoenas issued by

15

defendant to plaintiff’s health care providers.1 Dkt. Nos. 46, 47.

16

I.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Plaintiff’s requests for production numbers 6 and 8 seek documents relating to complaints

17
18

for the past ten years, made by any female employee of Serra and three other high schools

19

operated by defendant, about employees or students having subjected them to inappropriate

20

behavior, including conduct that was unwelcome and/or actually or potentially sexual or sexist in

21

nature. Plaintiff agreed to limit the request to complaints dating back to 2006. Given that plaintiff

22

alleges that a hostile environment existed at Serra, it is conceivable that complaints by female

23

employees of Serra and the three other high schools operated by defendant are relevant even if the

24

complaints do not characterize the conduct at issue as sexual or gender-based. Plaintiff’s request,

25

limited to complaints dating back to 2006, is appropriately tailored to the allegations. Defendant

26

shall produce all responsive documents.

27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion to seal the letter regarding defendant’s subpoenas is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 48.

Plaintiff’s requests for production numbers 7 and 9 seek documents believed, suspected or

1
2

alleged to have been created or authored by students at Serra and the three other high schools

3

operated by defendant that reflect any female depicted in a sexual, derogatory, hostile, or

4

degrading manner. Defendant seeks to limit the production to documents relating to female

5

employees; not any female, as requested by plaintiff.

6

Plaintiff’s request is somewhat overbroad. Defendant may limit its production to

7

documents depicting female employees of the four schools, as it suggested, as well as documents

8

relating to complaints or disciplinary actions dating back to 2006 regarding students’ depictions of

9

any women in a sexual, derogatory, hostile, or degrading manner at any of the four schools.

10

II.

DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENAS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendant has issued subpoenas to plaintiff’s health care providers seeking documents

12

dating back to 1993. Plaintiff seeks to limit the production to documents dating back to 2004.

13

Plaintiff also requests a “first look” procedure wherein plaintiff’s counsel would initially review

14

the documents produced by the health care providers for relevance.

15

Defendant’s request is overly broad. Records dating back to 2004 are sufficient in this

16

case. Once those records are reviewed, defendant can renew its request for earlier records if the

17

reviewed records demonstrate that earlier records are material. Given the sensitive nature of the

18

documents at issue, the “first look” procedure proposed by plaintiff is appropriate and shall be

19

employed.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2