Yates v. West Contra Costa Unified School District

Filing 91

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 57 Motion to Compel and 90 suggestion for polygraph examination. Plaintiff may propound additional discovery and/or conduct deposition to obtain clarification of issues. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FERNANDO YATES,

Case No. 16-cv-01077-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; REQUEST
FOR POLYGRAPH

v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 90

Defendant.

12

Plaintiff requested in discovery and now moves to compel the production of two

13

documents: (1) a letter informing Plaintiff of his demotion to substitute teacher, and (2) a letter

14

forcing Plaintiff to sign his resignation. See Mot., Dkt. No. 57. In his Reply, Plaintiff clarifies the

15

second document “is referring to the form handed in on November 14, 2014, by Cheryl Cotton,

16

Director of Human Resources (Exhibit 3) . . . [O]n November 21, Plaintiff went to Cheryl Cotton

17

office to correct and complete the form by defendant’s request. (Exhibit 4). Plaintiff is referring

18

to the form, WHERE IS THAT FORM?” Reply, Dkt. No. 61 at 2 (capitalization in original).

19

Exhibit 4 is a November 20, 2014 email from Cheryl Cotton to Plaintiff, stating she “received

20

[his] resignation form, however, the dates are not correct and the form is also incomplete. A

21

resignation form is attached. Please come in or call if you need assistance completing the form.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

We need to receive the completed form by Friday, November 21, 2014.” Reply, Ex. 4; see also
Dkt. Nos. 63 (attaching additional documents), 64 (declaration). Plaintiff argues this email
establishes Ms. Cotton had a copy of the missing resignation letter.
Defendant West Contra Costa County School District (“Defendant”) responded it had
searched for responsive documents, but that they could not be produced because to the best of its
knowledge, these documents had never existed. See Opp’n at 2-3, Dkt. No. 60.
During a status hearing on the matter, Plaintiff reiterated the basis for his contention the

1

documents existed. The Court ordered Defendant’s counsel to investigate the existence of the

2

documents further, and to obtain declarations from Defendant’s employees who interacted with

3

Plaintiff in connection with the documents. See Minutes, Dkt. No. 75.

4

Defendant’s counsel, Ms. Cotton, and two other District employees (Ms. Villagomez and

5

Ms. Sellers-Edwards) filed declarations as requested by the Court. Counsel declared the two

6

documents Plaintiff seeks were not contained in his personnel file, and that further investigation

7

by counsel and his client established the documents were not in Defendant’s files. Murphy Decl.

8

¶¶ 3-7, Dkt. No. 84. Counsel is informed and believes that, based on Plaintiff’s contract at the

9

time of the events alleged in the Complaint, the District did not have the authority to demote
Plaintiff, and thus would not have prepared a letter of demotion. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Ms. Cotton

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

corroborates counsel’s understanding that no demotion letter would have been prepared for

12

Plaintiff under the circumstances. Cotton Decl. ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 85. Ms. Cotton also corroborates

13

Plaintiff’s recollection that he showed her a resignation form in November 2014 and that she

14

asked him to correct the information. Id. ¶ 8. She declares Plaintiff did not return the completed

15

document and that Defendant never received a completed and signed letter of resignation; she also

16

declares she “did not retain a copy of the incomplete resignation form tendered” by Plaintiff in

17

November 2014.” Id. The other District employees who may have witnessed Plaintiff’s

18

interaction with Ms. Cotton in November 2014 have no recollection of such events. Villagomez

19

Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 86; Sellers-Edwards Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 87. The Court also notes Ms. Cotton’s

20

November 20, 2014 email can be construed to attach a blank resignation form, not Plaintiff’s

21

incomplete form.

22

The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s union representative, Rhem Bell, wrote to Ms.

23

Cotton on November 19, 2014, stating: “You confirmed that you already have his resignation

24

effective June 2015.” Reply, Ex. 4. While this statement is subject to several evidentiary

25

objections, it suggests that Ms. Cotton acknowledged to Mr. Bell receipt of Plaintiff’s resignation;

26

however, Mr. Bell does not describe the format in which the resignation was made (e.g., verbal,

27

email, paper), or clarify whether Ms. Cotton was referring to a final and effective resignation

28

letter, or to Plaintiff’s allegedly defective resignation letter.
2

1

In light of the declarations submitted in connection with this dispute, the Court finds there

2

are no documents to compel and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court also

3

DENIES Plaintiff’s “suggestion” to submit Ms. Cotton to a polygraph examination (Dkt. No. 90

4

at 3). Plaintiff nonetheless may propound additional discovery and/or depose Ms. Cotton to obtain

5

clarification about the “resignation effective June 2015” that is referenced in Mr. Bell’s email or

6

about the form resignation letter Ms. Cotton emailed him.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: March 1, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3