Taylor v. City and County of San Francisco
Filing
42
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/20/2015.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco
KUIANA TAYLOR,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
No. C 14-03555 CRB (LB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE
LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 2015
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
[Re: ECF No. 33]
15
16
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Plaintiff Kuiana Taylor brings this sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment action
19
against her former employer, Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”), pursuant to
20
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. She
21
seeks evidence regarding witnesses or comparators. (See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 33.) CCSF
22
concedes that the information is relevant and does not allege burden. (Id.) It notes, however, that
23
California Government Code § 10850 prohibits the disclosure of confidential information pertaining
24
to applicants for or recipients of public services. (Id. at 4.) The district court referred the parties’
25
pending discovery dispute to the undersigned for resolution. (Order of Reference, ECF 43.) At a
26
hearing on March 19, 2015, the court ordered the discovery that Ms. Taylor seeks.
STATEMENT
27
28
From October 2009 through October 2010, Ms. Taylor worked for CCSF as a Public Aide in its
ORDER (C 14-03555 CRB (LB))
1
Department of Public Works. She alleges that, throughout the duration of her employment, she
2
was repeatedly sexually harassed by her supervisor, Nelson Aguirre, who made repeated comments
3
that were sexual in nature as well as multiple requests for sexual favors. She further alleges that,
4
although she refused these requests, rebuffed these comments, and complained to CCSF, the
5
harassment was permitted to continue.
6
On November 26, 2014, Ms. Taylor propounded her First Request for Production of Documents.
7
Given the nature of this action, a number of requests seek documents that would contain the names
8
of other former or current CCSF employees who may have witnessed the alleged sexual harassment,
9
and/or who may have been subjected to similar harassment by employees or agents of CCSF.
category, encompassing Ms. Taylor’s Requests Six, Nine, Ten, Twelve, and Thirteen, seeks any
12
For the Northern District of California
According to Ms. Taylor, her document requests can be classified into four categories. The first
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
complaints Ms. Taylor made to the Department of Human Resources and the EEOC as well as any
13
communications that discuss her employment relationship with CCSF. The second category,
14
encompassing Ms. Taylor’s Requests Three and Four, seeks organization charts, personnel lists, and
15
employee rosters for the Department of Public Works, the Human Service Agency’s JobsNOW!
16
Public Service Trainee program (“Jobs Now Program”), and the Department of Human Resources.
17
The third category, encompassing Ms. Taylor’s Requests One and Twenty, seeks documents that
18
refer to her or CCSF’s initial disclosures. The fourth category, encompassing Ms. Taylor’s Requests
19
Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen, seeks documents that refer to any complaints of harassment or
20
discrimination against CCSF’s Department of Public Works or Jobs Now Program, as well as
21
documents that refer to CCSF’s investigations and other actions taken in response to those
22
complaints.
23
CCSF says that many of the former or current CCSF employees who may have witnessed the
24
alleged sexual harassment, such as Ms. Taylor’s co-workers, were or are participants in the Jobs
25
Now Program. Under that program, participants gain valuable work experience with the goal of
26
moving away from reliance on public assistance and into the mainstream workforce. The
27
majority of the Jobs Now Program participants were recipients of or receive public social services.
28
Knowing this, CCSF responded to twelve of Ms. Taylor’s twenty-two requests with the
ORDER (C 14-03555 CRB (LB))
2
1
following objection: “Welfare and Institutions (W&I) Code §10850. W&I Code section 10850
2
protects the privacy of individuals receiving public assistance. Thus, W&I Code section 10850
3
prevents [CCSF] from identifying the names of [Jobs Now Program] participants. W&I section
4
10850(d) states[,] [‘]Any person knowingly and intentionally violating this subdivision is guilty of a
5
misdemeanor.[’] [CCSF] is willing to identify [Jobs Now Program] participants after obtaining a
6
court order allowing [CCSF] to provide such information in light of W &1 Code section 10850.”
7
Following its written responses to Ms. Taylor’s requests, CCSF produced 2,517 pages of
8
documents, throughout which it had redacted all names or other identifying information of any
9
current employees through CCSF’s Jobs Now Program. In a subsequent telephonic meet-and-confer
involve internal investigations into Ms. Taylor’s claims) virtually indecipherable. The parties also
12
For the Northern District of California
session, both parties acknowledged that the redactions render the documents (many of which
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
agree that the redacted names – including those of witnesses to Ms. Taylor’s claims or other victims
13
of similar harassment – are highly relevant to this matter. Nevertheless, CCSF maintains that it will
14
not disclose such documents in the absence of a court order. In addition to the 2,517 pages of
15
redacted documents previously produced, CCSF estimates that another 2,000 pages of documents
16
are responsive to Ms. Taylor’s requests. CCSF intends to prepare for production and produce these
17
documents upon receipt of a court order on the parties’ dispute.
18
ANALYSIS
19
The California Evidence Code “declares authoritatively that evidentiary privileges . . . are
20
governed by statute.” HLC Props., LTD v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 4th 54, 59 (Cal. 2005) (citing
21
Cal. Evid. Code § 911 (“Except as otherwise provided by statute: . . . (b) No person has a privilege
22
to refuse to disclose any matter or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing. . . .”);
23
Moeller v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 4th 1124, 1129 (Cal. 1997)). “The party claiming a privilege
24
shoulders the burden of showing that the evidence it seeks to suppress falls within the terms of an
25
applicable statute.” Id. (citing People v. Gionis, 9 Cal. 4th 1196, 1208 (Cal. 1995); D.I.
26
Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 2d 723, 729 (Cal. 1964)).
27
28
Here, CCSF claims that the documents its has withheld are privileged under California Evidence
Code § 1040(b), which provides in relevant part that “[a] public entity has a privilege to refuse to
ORDER (C 14-03555 CRB (LB))
3
1
disclose official information, and to prevent another from disclosing official information, if the
2
privilege is claimed by a person authorized by the public entity to do so and . . . [d]isclosure is
3
forbidden by . . . a statute of this state[.] . . .” California Welfare and Institutions Code § 10850, in
4
turn, provides in relevant part:
5
6
7
8
9
10
16
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall publish or disclose or
permit or cause to be published or disclosed any list of persons receiving public
social services. Any county welfare department in this state may release lists of
applicants for, or recipients of, public social services, to any other county welfare
department or the State Department of Social Services, and these lists or any other
records shall be released when requested by any county welfare department or the
State Department of Social Services. These lists or other records shall only be used
for purposes directly connected with the administration of public social services.
Except for those purposes, no person shall publish, disclose, or use or permit or cause
to be published, disclosed, or used any confidential information pertaining to an
applicant or recipient.
17
...
18
(d) . . . Any person knowingly and intentionally violating this subdivision is guilty of
a misdemeanor.
11
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, all applications and records
concerning any individual made or kept by any public officer or agency in connection
with the administration of any provision of this code relating to any form of public
social services for which grants-in-aid are received by this state from the United
States government shall be confidential, and shall not be open to examination for any
purpose not directly connected with the administration of that program, or any
investigation, prosecution, or criminal or civil proceeding conducted in connection
with the administration of that program. The disclosure of any information that
identifies by name or address any applicant for or recipient of these grants-in-aid to
any committee or legislative body is prohibited, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
13
14
15
19
...
20
21
Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 10850(a), (b), (d). These subsections of § 10850 thus provide that three
22
types of information are confidential. See Haskins v. San Diego County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 100
23
Cal. App. 3d 961, 966-67 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (describing the three categories under the statute as it
24
was then written); Jonon v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App. 3d 683, 690-91 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)
25
(same). The first category covers “all applications and records concerning any individual made or
26
kept by any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of . . . any form of public
27
social services for which grants-in-aid are received by this state from the United States government.”
28
Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 10850(a). The second category is “information that identifies by name or
ORDER (C 14-03555 CRB (LB))
4
1
address any applicant for or recipient of these grants-in-aid to any committee or legislative body.”
2
Id. And the third category includes “any list of persons receiving public social services.” Cal. Wel.
3
& Inst. Code § 10850(b).
4
To show that the documents Ms. Taylor seeks fall within these one or more of these three
5
categories, CCSF says that the documents “contain numerous references to [her] coworkers in the
6
Jobs Now Program, and thus identify them as potential recipients of public social services.”
7
(3/9/2015 Joint Discovery Dispute Letter, ECF No. 33 at 6.) The court discussed this issue with the
8
parties at the March 19, 2015 hearing and concludes, for the reasons stated on the record, that the
9
information discloses only information about potential (not actual) recipients and that disclosure can
be made without revealing impermissibly the recipients’ status (and thus without violating the
11
statute). The court orders the discovery.
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
Moreover, the court fashioned the additional relief at the hearing that no one can refer (at a
13
deposition for example) about witnesses’ or potential comparators’ status as actual or potential
14
applicants for or recipients of public services. Ms. Taylor agreed to this limitation and also agreed
15
that the lawsuit implicates only claims of harassment and discrimination and not issues about receipt
16
of public services.
17
CONCLUSION
18
Ms. Taylor’s motion is granted. This disposes of ECF No. 33.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: March 20, 2015
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER (C 14-03555 CRB (LB))
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?