Yates v. West Contra Costa Unified School District

Filing 110

Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Letter, # 2 Exhibits to Joint Letter)(mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2017: # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).

EDRIN4TON., SCHIRfVfER &

/V(URPHY LLP
PFI"FR P
1(_/='/-r~ R

~f'.J-.1/RMFR

-rtMn-r~'(

P MI/R P~Y
I .1M F.<; M . M .1 R Z..il\1

Dnl nRF~
M
1\1 .11\1 r,v .1
\1.11\lf'F. R \All/ I /.1M~
f'f>DY IFF ~.1.1/
l.iMF~ ~1/.11\/ I Y

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE TERRAC/ES
2.300 vONTRA C/OSTA BOULEVARD, SUITE 450
PLEASANT HILL, C/ALIFORNIA q452.3-3q3"

TEL

(q2.s)

82.7-

<;"\

9.?7-

3300
r::.iX

(q?

4ARY fill. LEPPER
nc rntt,.l<:l="t

May 12,2017
The Honorable Maria Elena-James
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Re:

Yates v. West Contra Costa USD
U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal) Case No. 3:16-cv-01077MEJ
Dispute Regarding Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories, Set One; and
Inspection Demand, Set One.

Dear Judge Elena-James:
On May 12, 2017, the parties met and conferred in Chambers regarding plaintiff
Fernando Yates' discovery responses to Interrogatories, Set One; and Inspection
Demand, Set One pursuant to Court Order.
Additionally, the parties also met regarding Plaintiffs interrogatories, and request
for production of documents to the District while in Chambers.
The following are the parties' position on the disputed discovery issues:

I.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DISTRICT'S DISCOVERY

INTERROGATORY NO. ONE
Interrogatory No. One states "Itemize all economic damages that you claim to
have resulted from your separation from employment with the West Contra Costa Unified
School District including, but not limited to, lost wages, medical or mental health care
expenses, out-of-pocket expenses and any other financial losses."
Defendant's Position on Interrogatory No. One
Plaintiff did not object to the Interrogatory but instead wrote "benefits", circled
the " 1" in Interrogatory No. 1 and drew an arrow to the back page (see Exhibit B). The
back page has three calculations - the first calculation shows $177.27 times 12 months
equals $2,127.24 for West Contra Costa Unified School District; the next calculation

Hon. Maria Elena-James
Yates v. WCCUSD
May 12, 2017
Page 2
simply has $11 ,141.28 for Vallejo Unified School District; and the last calculation is
illegible. At the very bottom, plaintiff lists $25,650 in total benefits.
At the April 7, 2017 in-person meeting, plaintiff agreed to amend his itemizations
to provide a response that could be understood. Plaintiff has since reneged on his
agreement. The District is entitled to discover the itemization that plaintiff is claiming as
economic damages.
At the May 12, 2017 meeting in chambers, the District again explained that
plaintiffs handwriting is illegible and that he needs to proper amended responses in
typewritten form. Plaintiff refused.
Plaintiffs Position on Interrogatory No. One
At the April 7, 2017, not agreed in-person meeting, it is false that I agreed to
amend my itemizations, I answered interrogatory No . 1, and served responses on March
10, 20i7, but Defendant's counsel did not understand my response. For that reason as a
courtesy I sent an email on March 22, 2017, explaining in more detail my itemizations.
During the April 7, 2017, deposition I explained my itemizations again in deep detail ;
later on Mr. Murphy introduce me to Mr. Ly, and he asked me to meet with him in his
office and I explained to him my itemizations again.

INTERROGATORY NO. TWO
Interrogatory No. Two states "IDENTIFY all witnesses who can corroborate each
element of economic damages that you allegedly suffered as a result of your separation
from employment with the West Contra Costa Unified School District."
Defendant's Position on Interrogatory No. Two
Plaintiff simply writes "benefits documents". He did not identify any witnesses.
At the April 7, 2017 in-person meeting, plaintiff orally identified the witnesses. Plaintiff
agreed to amend his responses to identify his witnesses. Plaintiff has since reneged on his
agreement. Plaintiff needs to identify his witnesses in writing to prevent any possible
future controversies about which witnesses he identified orally at the meeting.
At the May 12, 20 17 meeting in chambers, the District again requested plaintiff to
amend his responses in typewritten form so that there will be no future controversies on
who the witnesses are. Plaintiff refused.
Plaintiffs Position on Interrogatory No. Two

Hon. Maria Elena-James
Yates v. WCCUSD
May 12, 2017
Page 3
At the April 7, 2017, not agreed in-person meeting, plaintiff wrote the names of
the witnesses requested by Defendant's counsel, but at the May 12, 2017, stated that he
do not have that document, it seems that he "lost it". However, I provided him the name
of the witnesses again. Akemi Lund, benefits specialist business service division, Vallejo
City Unified School District, and Alissa Wilkinson, payroll technician , Stanislaus Union
School District, I previously provided two e-mails to Defendant' s counsel with a detailed
information, about the itemizations claimed by Plaintiff.

INSPECTION DEMAND NO. 5
Inspection Demand No. 5 requests plaintiff to produce "Any and all documents
sent to or received from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing relating or
referring to suspension(s) of any teaching credential that you hold or to resolution of any
such suspension(s)."
Defendant's Position On Inspection Demand No.5
Plaintiff put "CTC Public Information" but did not produce any documents. At
the April 7, 2017 in-person meeting at the office for defendant's counsel, plaintiff agreed
to amend his response and produce all documents responsive to Inspection Demand No.
5. Plaintiff has since reneged on his agreement. The suspension of a teaching credential is
a significant issue in this matter. Plaintiff alleges that the District discriminated against
him in violation of the American Disabilities Act. To make a prima facie claim, plaintiff
must show that he is a qualified individual who can perform the essential functions of the
position. The issue of suspension of plaintiffs teaching credential is pertinent to whether
plaintiff is a qualified individual under an ADA claim.
At May 12, 20 17 meet and confer at Chambers, Mr. Yates stated that Document
bates stamped no. WCCUSD 00311 is the only responsive document to Inspection
Demand No.5 . Defendant requested that Mr. Yates amend his response in proper
typewritten form in compliance with the discovery rules to identify that WCCUSD 00311
is responsive to Inspection .No. 5.
Plaintiff's Position on Inspection Demand No.5
I did explain to Defendant's counsel that the document is an October 16, 2014 email, I explained it before several times. Mr. Ly and Mr. Murphy did not communicate
properly. This morning Mr. Yates showed the document again to Mr. Ly, and he
recognized it, in response to their inspection demand set 1, document requested No. 5

INSPECTION DEMAND No.6

Hon. Maria Elena-James
Yates v. WCCUSD
May 12,2017
Page 4
Inspection Demand No.6 requests plaintiffto produce "Any and all pay stubs, W2 forms or other evidence of earnings you have had from October 1, 2014 through the
date of your response to this Inspection Demand."
Defendant's Position on Inspection Demand No.6
At the April 7, 2017 in-person meeting, plaintiffs agreement to amend his
response and provide responsive documents was conditioned on his investigation of
whether he currently earns more at his current position than during his employment with
the District. If plaintiff earns more in his current position, plaintiff will withdraw his lost
wage claim as there is no basis for a lost wage claim. If he earns less, plaintiff will
amend his responses and will produce the responsive documents. In an April 10, 2017 email, plaintiff stated "I will investigate the amount of money that I made at WCCUSD
and the other district for summer school." He stated that he is not providing W-2s for the
years he is not claiming for lost wages. He states that "on April 14, 2017, I will send you
the documents under my control." (A true and correct copy of the April 10, 2017 E-mail
is attached as Exhibit C to this letter.) To date, plaintiff has not received an amended
response or any documents.
At the May 12, 201 7 meeting in Chambers, plaintiff represented orally he was not
making a lost wage claim. The District requested that plaintiff confirmed this in writing
by amending his response to Inspection Demand No. 6 to state that his not making a lost
wages claim. The District will not demand the W-2 and other documents stated in
Inspection Demand No.6 if plaintiff will confirm in writing his is withdrawing his lost
wages claim. The plaintiff stated that he wants the judge to decide.
Plaintiffs Position on Inspection Demand No. 6
I spoke with the legal help attorney and lost wages will not be claimed, for that
reason Defendant's counsel request is irrelevant.
II.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES

Defendant refuses to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories
This responses are very important because Plaintiff is trying to prove
that Mrs. Cheryl Cotton, Director of Human Resources perpetrated
perjury on her declaration February 17, 2017

1) Interrogatory No. 7 - Give the correct dates requested to Plaintiff to
write on his WCCUSD letter of resignation form given to Plaintiff by
the Human Director of Human Resources on the November 14, 2014,

Hon. Maria Elena-James
Yates v. WCCUSD
May 12,2017
Page 5
meeting with Director of Human Resources Mrs. Cheryl Cotton, CTA
Rep Rhem Bell , and Plaintiff

Defendant' s Position
Interrogatory No. 7 actually states "Give the correct dates requested to
plaintiff on his letter of resignation form dated November 14, 2014."
Defendant responded by stating "Defendant objects to this
Interrogatory on the basis that is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible,
assumes facts not in evidence, lacks foundation, and is not full and
complete in itself. Defendant cannot answer this Interrogatory as it is
currently worded."
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, which the court denied. In the
April 20, 2017 Denial Order, the Court stated "The court agrees with
Defendant that the majority of the Interrogatories are difficult to
understand, and the meet and confer process will give Plaintiff the
opportunity to clarify his requests." (Order, p.3 , line 8-10.)
Defendant tried to discuss with plaintiff in the May 12, 2017
conference about amending his Interrogatory to make it more
comprehensible, but plaintiff refused, saying he wants "the judge to
decide. "
Plaintiffs Position
Every time Plaintiff request Interrogatories from Defendant, the
answer is the same: " Defendant objects . .. and is not full and
complete itself'. I clarified the question to Defendant's counsel, but
he refused to give an answer.
The answer to this interrogatories, are very important, because
Plaintiff is trying to prove that Mrs. Cheryl Cotton, Director of
Human Resources, perpetrated perjury on her declaration on
February 17, 2017, she declared:" He (Plaintiff) did not return the
completed document and the district has never received a completed
and signed letter of resignation from him"
2) Interrogatory No. 13- Did WCCUSD discussed with CTA Rhem Bell
about their concerns regarding Plaintiff, brain surgery affecting his
ability to teach?
Defendant's Position

Hon. Maria Elena-James
Yates v. WCCUSD
May 12, 2017
Page 6

Interrogatory No. 13 states "Did WCCUSD shared with CTA Bell
Rhem their concerns about plaintiff brain surgery?"
Defendant tried discussing with plaintiff at the May 12, 201 7
conference if he is inquiring if any WCCUSD employee ever share
their concerns with Bell Rhem about plaintiffs brain surgery. Plaintiff
stated he wanted to talk to the judge.
Plaintiffs position
Defendant's counsel is an absolute lie. The question is very clear,
however Plaintiff clarified it for Defendant's counsel, but he argued
again: " Defendant objects . ..
This interrogatory is very important, because Plaintiff is trying to
prove that Defendant shared with CTA rep Rhem Bell their concerns
for Plaintiffs brain surgery affecting his ability to teach. Defendant
seems to continue thinking the same, because on May 201 7, requested
all medical records to Plaintiffs neurosurgeon, Dr. Spetzler, Phoenix
Barrow and Spine institute.

111.
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
This e-mails are important because Plaintiff is trying to establish
that Mrs, Cheryl Cotton, Director of Human Resources, perpetrated perjury on her
declararion on February 17, 2017.
1) Defendant refuses to produce all e-mails between WCCUSD and
CTA Rhem Bell regarding Plaintiff. On their Defendant's amended
initial disclosures, Defendant fails to produce all the e-mails.
requested, Plaintiff identified additional e-mails between WCCUSD
and CTA Rhem Bell, and not produced by Defendant. At the May
12, 2017, meeting in chambers Defendant' s counsel did not about
the e-mails not produced by Defendant, and stated: "Those are all
thee-mails the gave me".
Defendant's Position
Defendant believes that Plaintiff is referring to Inspection Demand No. 1, Set No.
5, which states, "E-mails between CTA Rhem Bell and West Contra Costa Unified
School District pertaining plaintiff Fernando Yates."
Defendant stated the following in its discovery responses -

'

.
Hon. Maria Elena-James
Yates v. WCCUSD
May 12,2017
Page 7
"Defendant objects to this Request as overbroad, vague, ambiguous, burdensome and oppressive.
Documents responsive to this Request have already been produced. Without waiving said objections,
plaintiff responds as follows :
Please see WCCUSD Bates No. 138, 140, 160, 161 , 165, 167, 256,257-274,289,291,294, 297,
299-369. Defendant will not produce these documents again as these documents have already been
produced to plaintiff."

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, which the court denied. In the April 20, 2017
Denial Order, the Court stated "Defendant has not refused to produce documents: in
response to RFP Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant indicates it already produced documents and
identifies specific Bates-numbered documents that are responsive to the RFPs. Jd.
Defendant need not produce documents that already have been produced. During the
meet and confer process, Plaintiff should explain the basis for his belief that Defendant
is withholding other responsive documents." (Order, p.3, line 14-18.)
Defendant asked plaintiff at the May 12, 20 17 conference regarding his basis for
why he thinks the District is withholding e-mails. Plaintiff claims that he sent e-mails
between Rhem Bell and the District that were not produced hy the District. Counsel for
the District has not seen this purported e-mail. Plaintiff represented he cannot reproduce
this e-mail that he supposedly sent. Counsel for the District represented to plaintiff that
non-privileged e-mails regarding plaintiff has already been produced.
The parties thank this Court for its time and attention to this matter.

Is/

Fernando Yates
FERNANDO YATES, In Pro Se
Plaintiff

Is/James Huan Ly
JAMES HUAN LY
Edrington Schirmer & Murphy LLP
Attorneys for Defendant West Contra Costa Unified School District